Mini 517: Tree Stump Mafia: Game Over

[Adele]

/confirm

[Adele]

hey jdodge, scotmany:

instead of bandwagoning and trying to lynch mos, do you want to go for adele instead? she's really stupid and recent events show that she would be just as worthwile a "principle lynching" as mos...

Actually, I'm very bright (sorry). What recent events? What "principle"?

p.s. i have not looked at my role, nor do i plan to throughout the course of this game

That's an antigame approach. I object.

It seems to me we have a "mountainous"-style setup here (where nights are vital to the scum's success) and an ability to avoid going to night. Simply put, I suggest that once someone gets to L-2, if two people who aren't voting for that person chant "stump" then that person should stump themselves and we won't have to go to night.

Of course, the scum may as well just refuse an get lynched, so it may not be possible to avoid having 2 nights - but that's all. I can't see how this wouldn't move the balance of the game towards the town. Any thoughts?

[Adele]

I'm in favor of killing him now.

He's just going to be a impediment to us if he is going to be playing that way.

QFT.

He claims he hasn't read his role and uses this as an excuse to act anti-town. "My scummy behaviour isn't actually scummy because of this third factor that you cannot verify!"

Am I missing something here?

vote: Quagmire

[Adele]

i understand your sentiments to lynch me but just so you know i have just as much of a chance as everyone else to be town as mafia

Unless you lied about not checking your role pm because you're scum.

Also: do you have a reason for that, at all, or have you just decided, since you've not checked your role pm and so don't know what your role is, that you don't care which way the game goes and so just want to randomise the whole thing?

Come on, quag. Most people (i hope) are actually here to play the game, not screw around. If they're really okay with the first murder being truly random (since you decided to gun for me before I even posted), then there's not much point any of us being here, is there?

[Adele]

If we let people off being lynched because they refuse to treestump, refusing to stump will become the dominant strategy for town and scum alike. However, I agree that a quicklynch is a Bad Thing (tm).

I was stunned to have four votes on me at the end of page 2, and didn't pay much attention to how many votes were on quag. So, for now:

Unvote

however, I won't support antitown play by inaction. If quag won't retract or agree to play a solidly protown game (you know, post "ok, I checked and guess what? I'm a tree! Shocker, no?" so we can get on with the game we're here to play) then I support his lynching.

[Adele]

I don't... But I know there is a higher chance he is town then he is mafia. And a pretty equal chance he is power role town and vanilla town. But you have made it clear you do not care if he is town or mafia, you just want him dead. So why do you suddenly care if he is town?

Do you mean, in general? Because when we play the game we intuitively use bayesian probabilities to adjust the likelihood up or down. As in:

given that

X is acting so scummy, he's more probably scum.

Now, I don't know if Quagmire looked at his role pm or not. It appears to me that he said that he hadn't and wouldn't

after

it arrived; so he could very well have read it, found himself to be scum, and decided to try to get a free pass (because he "doesn't know" so is "probably town") for acting thouroughly anti-town (eg refusing to stump under pressure, when it's clear that refusing to stump and thus forcing the town to lynch you only causes more nights which benefits the scum). He's acting scummy, and we're taking his word that he doesn't know if he's scum or not?
Scum

have

been known to lie, you know.

There also appear to be people who say that if someone refuses to stump then, rather than lynch them, we should harrass someone who

is

willing to stump into stumping. If

that's

our policy, then I will refuse to stump (as a last-ditch effort to save myself) and so should everyone else; it becomes the dominant strategy for town and scum alike. Let me clarify: we should ask people to selfstump

in place of

being lynched; if they refuse we should lynch them. We should therefore, obviously, treat a stumping as seriously as a lynching, as it might turn out to be just that if they refuse.

At the moment I think it's about even odds that Quag's scum or town, and so far it's been going up every time he posts. Let's see if that trend reverses...

[Adele]

Frankly speaking, you are doing your side a tremendous disservice regardless of which team you happen to be on. The later you make it into the game, the more your distraction will be a detriment to the town and the more powerful your vote will be.

I don't like the idea of a vote being in the hands of a player who is going to play halfassed like this, and I'll do my best to get rid of him early rather than to have him screw us up late.

i'm not playing "half assed," i don't know how many times i need to pound this into your thick skulls

there's a good reason that i'm not reading my role pm, and i've detailed this earlier, and i will not repeat this again

The "good reason" is about benefiting you specifically, not the side you are on. Unless you are a survivor role, you are not working towards your WC.

there are good reasons that i'm not stumping, which i've already detailed. pooky, your argument before the part of your post that i quoted sucks so badly, i'm not even going to address it with anything other than you're trying to back me into a corner instead of actually try and figure out what i am (because if i were to respond to anything you say, you'll just dismiss it as wifom and call me scum or whatever)

Actually, pooky's arguments make sense to me. Saying "your argument sucked but if I point out how you'll just ignore me" is a really appalling argument, and something which I can't see any better option to do with than dismiss. It's not a counterargument of any kind whatsoever, so how can I take it into account? You disagree with Pooky that you're full of crap? Well, shocker.

and i find this pretty ironic that you guys feel like you're trying to guess what i am, because i don't know what i am, so there's absolutely no way that anyone could guess what i am based off of my actions

And one more time: how do I know you aren't lying about that? How do I know you didn't make the "won't check my role pm" as a pre-emptive once you'd read taht you were scum?

OK, let's draw a larger point. Let's universalise your maxim. Say no-one opened their role pm and everyone played blind. What would the result be? A random D1 lynch and no additional information to work off of the next day (by which time people presumably are aware). This is a disservice to the town, when each individual is more likely to be town than scum. Is it balanced by a much larger service to the scum? No, it's the same size. Meanwhile, you've wasted however much time playing a game that isn't mafia, and hopped into a swingier setup.
So, why does your plan make sense for the one, but not the many? I'm serious: you claim it benefits you (which it might, but only once you attain a bad metagame rep), but I don't see how it benefits whichever side you are on today.

[Adele]

Don't have time for a long one here; I agree it might be worth looking around, but, while I'm grateful that Quag explained himself, I'm still suspicious of him. Here's my response to his pro-not-checking-explain post:

Okay. I'll buy that someone might genuinely feel that not knowing their role for D1 ultimately benefits their side. They might, they might not.

The only person here, though, who knows whether you're telling the truth about all this is you. I can't treat it as game-relevant information when there's no verifiability to it.

Not checking your role pm = maybe
Expecting others' attitudes towards your play to change because of it = no

Voting you

because

you said you didn't check your role pm = meh
Voting you in spite of your claim of not checking your role pm = yeah

I'm suspicious of you for other stuff besides the not-checking-role...ness:
1. Early random bandwagon encouragement
2. Refusing to treestump over getting lynched
3. Not answering questions straight (and, if your counterargument to something is wifomable, then that does reflect on the quality of the counterargument)
4. Appearing to expect a free pass due to not checking role.
5. If I'm stringently honest, the insulting of me

may

have further influenced it. At least, I always try to stay concious when I'm frustrated with someone how much that colours my suspicion of them.


At the end of the day, you are expecting people to treat you differently because of a factor that cannot be tested or verified. Why would I do that?

[Adele]

oh, and <3 quag for catching the kant ref

[Adele]

Quag, I understand that you are saying you haven't opened your role. And I understand that until you do so, I will be pushing for your lynch. And I understand that you getting lynched, or being forced to stump, will hurt whichever team you happen to be on.

I believe that's five.

mith, what i'm saying is that you should *at the very least* wait until tomorrow, where you guys won't hurt yourselves in lynching me. essentially, what you're doing here is policy lynching me, and it's not going to benefit the town until i've become a "normal" player.

Why don't you just check your role pm now then? Seems hypocritical to me. Anyone who asks for a free pass is a worthwhile target to me.

silverphoenix: i figured that i'd vote for adele before the game started because she tried to argue against the theory of gravity, and there's not going to be any better information for me to pursue on day one.

which

theory? FFS...

[Adele]

This is what I make the VC to be at:

Quagmire: 5 (d3sisted, pooky, Mastermind of Sin, mith, max)
silverphoenix: 2 (Jdodge, scotmany12)
Adele: 1 (Quagmire)
Korlash: 1 (Korlash)
scotmany12: 1 (silverphoenix)

And, in case it's not obvious, I'm ready to vote for you. Hell, I've been ready to vote for you for several pages now. One last chance: Stump. Now. I'll be dropping my vote in 24 hours.

[Adele]

vote: Quagmire

obligatory "

Quagmire is on Lynch-1

" notice.

I hesitated, since he's not posted in this thread since my threat. But he

has

posted onsite, and this isn't the hammer, so...

[Adele]

The whole case on Quag is that he's supposedly scum for not wanting to stump

?

1. Early random bandwagon encouragement
2. Refusing to treestump over getting lynched
3. Not answering questions straight (and, if your counterargument to something is wifomable, then that does reflect on the quality of the counterargument)
4. Appearing to expect a free pass due to not checking role.

Deciding

against

lynching someone because they refuse to do as the town demands ftl.

[Adele]

Please I still hold to my "I would rather stump today then have yesterday keep going what with how retarded every single person in this thread is."

Suggest that if it's all that painful for you, you request replacement rather than self-destruct and harm your side.

I am still firmly against what just happened

You're against what you just did?

I'm not going to defend my hammer because it was a plain dumb move. I only did it because I was pissed at all of you.

For what? Playing "retardedly"? I didn't think a whole lot of

your

play yesterday, actually; you flip-flopped a lot, much like you're doing now.

Do you honestly think a scum would be that stupid...

That

's your defence? That's practically the

definition

of one of the forms of wifom. That argument it, to my view, so unsound that there was no use in posting it at all.

Ugh: Korlash

But, sticking with my theory from yesterday,

Vote: SilverPhoenix

Theory=that quag and silver were scumbuddies. Has its merits, considering

Vote: Quagmire

I can't take it anymore. I'd rather kill you now then have to deal with your horrible play. It's not just that you are acting scummy, you are just playing horribly.

... "I can't trust a scumbuddy as bad as you not to bring us all down with you, so I'm bussing you now"?
Although, that's not

very

strong. Silver's one of the ones I want to read again in detail.

hey jdodge, scotmany:

instead of bandwagoning and trying to lynch mos, do you want to go for adele instead? she's really stupid and recent events show that she would be just as worthwile a "principle lynching" as mos...

I suppose it's just a coincidence that those two were the only ones against Quagmire's lynch?

Vote: JDodge

FoS scotmany

Whether it's the key to the game or not, it certainly seemed to me that people were clearly divisible yesterday:

QuagLovas: jdodge, Scotmany
QuagUmmers: Aimee, Korlash
QuagHaters: Adele, d3sisted, MoS, Max, mith, pooky, silverphoenix

I really wanna hear more from Aimee and Max, btw.

I'm writing a player analysis - I'll post it after work. More soon.

[Adele]

Aimee: played weak, hardly posted. Never voted, barely posted any suspicions. Need to hear more from her, like, yesterday. On the other hand, has done nothing

wrong

... which doesn't make it okay. Neutral on her

so long as

she brings her game up

right now

.

d3sisted: hated quag from the go, never really even thought about anything else, voted him early, but then did lift the vote when quag was near-lynch "to prevent self-lynch"

JDodge: part of the Adele hatewagon, supported quag to the extent of voting silverphoenix and d3sisted (two of the easier-to-attack quaghaters), defended quagmire passionately on the ground that his allocation was still Schrodinger-tacular. If he'd had his way, Quagmire would be alive at least until we'd caught another scum, and maybe by then we'd've forgotten about him.

Korlash: Selfvoted (woo). Didn't want to lynch quag because quag wouldn't stump, so there'd be a night (also, didn't want a quicklynch). Requested replace on quag ("possibly trying to swap in a bad partner for a good one?" lol). Eventually just got sick of him. Seemed to be a lot of contradictions, and flip-flopping.

Max: Posted little. Hated Quag. Voted quag. Theorised that quag wouldn't have been allowed in the game if he'd not checked his role, and said that confirming /in without checking role is essentially a lie. Don't know how he'll go in the future; been pretty one-note so far. Don't really have a read on him, but so far like what he's done

Mith (replaces Bapa Bail): Bapa bail was hoppy and unhelpful. Mith, the opposite (<3). Already established as a solid, determined, and potentially town-leading player; slight worry if he's scum, but then Bapa Bail didn't look very scummy, and he seemed a very weak player who'd've looked scummier were he scum.

Mastermind of Sin: dice-tag vote, which I'm always so fond of, then switched to Quagmire; didn't believe Quag's claim to've not read his role (and, apparently, thinks anyone who does believe it to be somewhat naive). Held his vote on quag through to the end of day, and argued succinctly against some of the defenses put up against quagwagon.

scotmany12: part of the Adele hatewagon. Voted also silverphoenix. Defended Quagmire to the end:

If quag does not know his role, then we should ignore him for today. Starting the next day we can focus on him. I also personally do not see scum trying to pull what he is doing. I believe that this is a waste of a lynch.

I think I see wifom and "let my scumbuddy off for today at least pls!" here... just, nothing good.

SilverPhoenix: Quaghater. Possibility here:

Vote: Quagmire

I can't take it anymore. I'd rather kill you now then have to deal with your horrible play. It's not just that you are acting scummy, you are just playing horribly.

... "I can't trust a scumbuddy as bad as you not to bring us all down with you, so I'm bussing you now"?
Especially since, as soon as quag posted any kind of defence of his behaviour, silver jumps off the wagon. Never revoted quag. Not loving this guy.

So, my vague estimates of peoples' likelihood to be scum:

mith 10% (BUT both potentially the most helpful townie or most dangerous scum)
max 15%
mos 15%
aimee 20%
d3sisted 20%
silver 25%
korlash 30%
jdodge 35%
scotmany 35%
Adele 0%. (But that last one's just my opinion )

[Adele]

Adele What do you want to here from me?

you made 8 posts yesterday:
1. confirm
2. stump policy discussion
3. Basil Exposition
4. joke
5. joke, the "I think if people who are town refuse to stump they shouldn't really be town so really it's a simple error", whatever that means
6. Threaten to vote Quagmire
7. complain about people confirming without reading role pms
8. Vote Quagmire

Whilst I like the action you took, I feel you've undercontributed and not provided enough in the way of opinions or suspicions for us to evaluate you. You game has been too safe so far, and it limits my ability to judge your scumlikelihood.

so, what I want is... more. More posts, more serious posts, longer posts, more evaluating, argumentative, accusatory, defending (of yourself or others, as appropriate), more suspicions.

[Adele]

As it is, I get the impression that SP wanted to join the growing bandwagon for distancing, got off in hopes that his scumbuddy could be saved, and then tried distancing again when it was clear Quag was going down.

I do not see how all of these would add up to scum. A scum would not do all the tactics I did, or at least in the order I did them in and on the same player.

Okay. Why not?

[Adele]

JDodge: part of the Adele hatewagon, supported quag to the extent of voting silverphoenix and d3sisted (two of the easier-to-attack quaghaters), defended quagmire passionately on the ground that his allocation was still Schrodinger-tacular. If he'd had his way, Quagmire would be alive at least until we'd caught another scum, and maybe by then we'd've forgotten about him.

Please, refresh my memory; what was the case for Quag being scum that

cannot be explained by him not reading his role PM

?

What's the case for

anyone

being scum that

cannot be explained by them being townie playing badly?

The fact that something

can

, potentially, explain something doesn't mean it's anywhere near sufficient, and Quag was misbehaving on

several

levels. Once more:

1. Early random bandwagon encouragement
2. Refusing to treestump over getting lynched
3. Not answering questions straight (and, if your counterargument to something is wifomable, then that does reflect on the quality of the counterargument)
4. Appearing to expect a free pass due to not checking role.

5. Plus generally making an arse of himself and annoying everyone, which can jam peoples' scumdars

By-the-by, the fact that I've now had to post that list 3 times?

Big

part of my suspicion of quaglovas. This didn't come out of nowhere. There have been

loads

of posts in this game stating

several

good reasons why quag needed to die, and certain people have been stubbornly ignoring them.

Now's the time to stop ignoring them, accept you were wrong, and move on.

[Adele]

The town needs to wake up. Seriously.

I didn't want this role. I wanted to be a Lumberjack! Leaping from tree to tree!

I don't really care if this is bad play. All I care about is the scum targeting a confused townie.

... oh, my, god. Suicide out of annoyance? I expected this more of korlash. Uncool, man; if you aren't willing to play anymore, ask to be replaced, don't just screw the town!

What do you mean, "All I care about is the scum targeting a confused townie", anyway?

[Adele]

1. If you are talking about the early bw on adele, ever heard of joke voting? And if this is the case, why are you not singling out mith, because bp also was on that bandwagon.

A joke vote is one thing. Two, even. On the basis of nothing at all, though, I was brought to L-3. That's a bit "WTF"?
And: mith took a radically different course of action than his predecessor - who was not just replaced, but was banned from the site a while back (under a different alt) for mucking games up. I think taking whatever opportunities one can to tack Bapa's misdeeds on mith's tail would be bad play.

I have a question for those who defended Quagmire: did you have any particular reason to think he was telling the truth?

[Adele]

It was in my long winded post which my computer crashed just before posting...

I'll have to write it later

I would like to see it, if only for reassurance that you aren't merely buddying up with me. Also, while I don't really agree with Aimee's vote, I am looking forward to your response to it.

No posting until Monday or Tuesday, no access.

/groan... then you'd better believe I'll be expecting a

lot

of quality content from you then.

JDodge: why are you voting d3sisted? I can see this

The Quagmire wagon is driven by two things IMO - a so-called "policy lynch" which is hypocritical but not necessarily scummy, and the opportunists like d3sisted and Max who just want a lynch so they can make use of one of their very few possible nightkill attempts. I'm willing to bet SP is the third scum, too, but the case on d3sisted compels me.

But doesn't that argument assume quagmire to be town, as we now

know

he wasn't?
btw, the people on d3sisted's wagon are jdodge and scotmany.
At least they're staying true to themselves, I guess... but it doesn't enhance the credibility of the d3sistedwagon - unless this is another joke wagon?

Also how many stumps can we have before it turns to LYLO? 3 more? Hmm... 12 players.. minus 3... thats 9... 2 mafia... 7 townies... nope... 3 stumps loses the game... so only two more stumps... huh... Did I count right?

no, I see what you did there - you treated the "7 townies" as "7 man, 2 scum"; like a newbie (

sans

power roles). Here's how it is, assuming all townies stump and no scum do. If 5 more townies stump before any more scum die, we lose. Interestingly, we don't get a softer safety net once one scum dies, since that gain is mitigated by an NK. For example, if we stump 3 townies then catch scum, D3 will open with 1 scum and 3 town; usually classic nolynch debate territory but because of the nature of this game, we'll have 2 shots, so at least a 50-50 chance.

[Adele]

Eventually, but for now I want to see more before I disclose said reasons.

I, for one, not cool with that. If it was day 1, if we had a reason to trust or believe you, if you were AniX... but its not, we don't, you ain't. Pls spill.

Adele, what do you think of

my

statistics? As far as averages go, at least...

I don't really get them, I trust you (since why lie when you can so easily be caught), and I don't think it affects how we should play right now.

1) Followed Quagmire on Adele with absolutely no support whatsoever (does "I do not see him providing any substantial information." ring a bell?). Moreover, seeing as you followed a confirmed scum, I think we can safely assume Adele is town; therefore, you hunted a town.

<3 and all, but I don't think of myself as confirmed.

[Adele]

Nice omgus. You are not confirmed town. Silver was scummy as hell. Adele is not confirmed town. Um, me, quag, and jdodge decided this before the game even started.

Decided what? To go after me as a lynch candidate (and, even if you claim your vote was a joke, quagmire acted as though I should seriously be the D1 lynch, and you didn't call him on that)? Actually, it looks from quagmire's first post that you agreed ahead of time to lynch mos. Then he changed his mind - and you obeyed him..

And yes I believe that to be true. On day 1, you made 10. You now have 14. I would say you are lurking. At the time that jdodge questioned you, you made 5. And yes, I don't see any substantial information. You are repeating ideas of others. Not once did you come up with your own idea. You did not push this lynched. You rode this bandwagon.

You question me for scumhunting? I was scumhunting, just look at me question silver. And if you are going to say that me thinking silver was scum, then you also have to look at jdodge and mith. I don't see any scumhunting from you. You let others question quag. I actually don't recall you once posing a question to quag. You might have been the first on the wagon, but you did not push it, or hunt for scum at all.

At the start of day 2, I had max scummier than you. But you put an opportunistic vote on jdodge. You still have yet to state why you did not even consider anything else, and simply go for the obvious person. That is being opportunistic.[/quote]

You question me for scumhunting? I was scumhunting, just look at me question silver. And if you are going to say that me thinking silver was scum, then you also have to look at jdodge and mith.

mith is one thing, jdodge is quite another. By which I mean, if you're going to point to jdodge doing the same as you as validating that action, then that's not gonna fly with me, because so far, you are as bad as each other.

However, as you say, mith was looking closely at silver (as was I about to) so that's not necessarily a scumtell - however, since silver was a townie, it's not a pro-town tell either (as if those even exist).

[Adele]

That's a lot... ok, I'm writing this post as I read. Just fyi.

Adele, I can't control what quag does. And originally it was going to be mos, but we switched to you.

Quag decided to switch to me. You decided to follow him. That

ws

under your control, as was your choice to not criticise him.

Korlash: damn, but you're posting a lot! Thanks and all, but it's tough to keep up.

Also I find it odd you talk about all these pints Adele made and yet vote for Silver… Weird… Only wanting to vote for townies others have already voted eh?

/agree. It's like he wants to damage my credibility just to hurt someone else by association, because he perceives my credibility as to high to be a plausible lynch right now.

Which is why, ok, it's wifom, but it makes me slightly more reassured to see Korlash scrutinising me (and putting me together with mos). It reduces the chance of Korlash being scum in my eyes, but then marginally increases the chance of Korlash being scum with mos. So, I guess I'd better answer his case:

If we let people off being lynched because they refuse to treestump, refusing to stump will become the dominant strategy for town and scum alike. However, I agree that a quicklynch is a Bad Thing (tm).

I was stunned to have four votes on me at the end of page 2, and didn't pay much attention to how many votes were on quag. So, for now:

Unvote

however, I won't support antitown play by inaction. If quag won't retract or agree to play a solidly protown game (you know, post "ok, I checked and guess what? I'm a tree! Shocker, no?" so we can get on with the game we're here to play) then I support his lynching.

As much I as want to not believe in a partnership between them I find it funny mentioning how she would be all for a Quag lynch yet unvoted just the same…

I said in that post I wanted to prevent a

quicklynch

. Also, what did that post have to do with mos?

Seeing as how much Quag kept fighting more or less to get himself killed I am beginning to see the MoS, Adele, and Quag trio more and more. A good plan that could have very easily been thought of by MoS and Quag. While I like others more, if this turns out to be the case I am going to probably do a little jig… 9 times out of 10 I’m wrong though… No dance for me…

Today started with 8 town to 2 scum. Doesn't seem like a good plan to me. Again, how does that show the trio? I guess there was the early "me quag hate mos", but jdodge and scot say that happened pregame.

Kinda dumb to wait if you ask me… he has more or less said 50 times he will not stump.. waiting 24 hours is kinda dumb…

heh... at some point in the thread I think that was criticised as not long enough.

I don't really see it, any more than any other random pairing being scum with quag. But then, I guess I wouldn't.

Regarding Bapa Bail / mith: I usually hold replacements accountable for their predecessor's actions, save for lurking. However, there were 2 things about this case that made me not want to do that:
1) The reason why bapa bail was chucked off; because of a history of screwin' round
2) mith's first (2nd?) post was so vehemently at odds with bapa's attitude, and so firmly grounded, that it seemed only fair to wipe the BB slate.

Jdodge:

Long posts are bad.

5-6 long posts are worse.

5-6 long posts consecutively with terrible logic are a violation of the Geneva convention.

That doesn't count as a rebuttal, y'know...

Lynching town in a setup where lynching is bad is, in general, BAD

1. He wasn't town.
2. We had no reason to believe he was town
3. To avoid lynching people, we have to punish them if they refuse to stump. We can't just let "I won't stump!"-ers off the hook. Ironically, this is a case where if we want peace we must be prepared for war.

HOW THE HELL

IS GOING AFTER PEOPLE FOR OPPORTUNISM

OPPORTUNISM?

I think his point is,

everything's

opportunism, in that in order to do something you must have the opportunity to do it.

HOW THE HELL IS ME DISAGREEING WITH SOMEONE WHO I'M SCUM WITH FOR "BUDDYING UP TO THEM" SCUMMY?

Admittedly I find this whole post impossible to follow (way to include quotes but exclude the quotations from them), but did Jdodge just say he's scum with someone? Did Jdodge just tell us he's scum?

edit: heh. "Paging dr freud".

OK. So, Korlash and Silver really don't get along with jdodge and scotmany... and that summarises pretty much the last page of posts. Yow.

I want to hear from max's replacement, and from mith and mos and aimee again... (I'm a bit worried that max never justified his Adele-trust before slipping out). To clarify, I wanna hear from max's replacement and aimee because they've gotten away with undercontribution, and from mith and mos because I've found their input to be of value.

And Jdodge, If you don't explain why you're voting d3sisted now, I'm going to vote for you. This isn't just going to fly under the radar, y'know.

[Adele]

I was fine letting DGB's "theory" slide as a possibility until I saw this gem.

DBG, why do you think adele is scum? Also there is only 2 scum left. Silver can also not be scum as he is innocent when he stumped.

I REPEAT: "Massive Day 1 distancing with Adele, and vice-versa. I bet the farm that Adele is scum #2. Textbook case here." Adele and Quagmire were distancing big time. Especially when you combine the baselessness of Quagmire's "case," and its relentless aggressivity. Adele and Quagmire are buddies. 95% sure, Bayesian calculator in hand (hey, my husband teaches Bayesian statistics to PhD students, so there, I should know, osmotic transfer of knowledge and all).

First off, I want to check what you meant by "Quagmire's 'case'". If you mean the fact that he was trying to get Adele lynched, I think half the people in this game can confirm that he was telling everyone in scumchat he would lynch Adele and then MoS before role pms were even sent out. So of course his "case" against Adele was completely baseless. If you were referring to the case

against

Quagmire, then we have other problems, since it was far from baseless.

heh. That'd be my response. I can't speak for Quagmire, but he was quite rude to me outside of the game shortly before we got the roles, and seemed to carry that animosity in (will provide linky soon). I didn't know about the "let's kill Adele" conversation predating role send-out, though; thanks for the heads-up, mos.

As for myself, I'm feeling... smug. I called it, I pushed it. I didn't want to quicklynch him, but I regard myself as an integral part of his wagon (especially pre-mith). You seem to have just turned on the person who got on least well with the confirmed scum as "obvscum", and that doesn't seem a reliable method to me.

Just to clarify:

Is

this random/stirring/D1-style hijinks? I can't really tell with you.

[Adele]

As for myself, I'm feeling... smug. I called it, I pushed it.

I didn't want to quicklynch him

, but I regard myself as an integral part of his wagon (especially pre-mith). You seem to have just turned on the person who got on least well with the confirmed scum as "obvscum", and that doesn't seem a reliable method to me.

Bold mine. Over-distancing blowback is what it is. And look! You didn't want to

quicklynch him

. And why not? If you're town, you'd want his head on a platter, pronto.

Because I didn't

know

that he was scum, and I wanted to give him every chance to redeem himself and start playing constructively.

Adele put you low-ish on her suspicion list, and Korlash was high, but not the highest. That is why. Adele is distancing herself from Korlash a great deal more, and she put a number on it so that there cannot be an argument. Thank you Adele!

I'm not sure I like this. I certainly did put numbers on my list - and mith, you'll note those numbers add up to 200 - because, why not?

My questions for you, then, are:
1) why not max (which is to say,

you

, or aimee, or someone else listed between mos and Kor on my list?
2) do you in any way disagree with my list? The list itself is an analysis of how townily people acted yesterday according to the criteria I judge by - criteria which I think I made very clear. Does anyone's postion in my list seem

oddly

high or low to you?

It seems like it'd be very easy for someone new to a game to accuse one person of obvscum because of some level of wifom (X defended scum, Y fence-sat on the scumwagon, Z distanced from scum), then take that person's list and apply a new level of it to justify targets that you've chosen (for example if you'd wanted mith out, saying "mith obvscum because Adele has made the same mistake again, not being subtle; she's defending him 100% in the hope that once we know she's scum we'll assume he's not because scum would never be that blatant"). Actually, given some of max's behaviour, it's slightly worrying.

Do you have any points or arguments besides this, or are you going to judge the game entirely upon me from here on in?

Also (btw), you didn't answer my earlier question: are you being serious, or goofing around? Because I don't know if you want a serious answer or not, and so I'm assuming you do.

[Adele]

Goofball, there's something about your argument that's been tweaking at the back of my head. You're "certain" that I'm scum because "quag and I distanced" ie. because he attacked me for no reason and I attacked him. Except, I think that my behaviour was the

right

behaviour, and I don't think you've argued that it wasn't.

It's kinda like you've insulted me without criticising me. "You Suck" is all very well and good, but you've not pointed to anything

wrong

. If you disagree with anything I've said or done, say so, but don't just say that X behaviour was distancing-like, when it was so justified.
As to your claim that I didn't want Quagmire lynched: I gotta say, I don't know if the lynch would've happened if I'd not been here.

Especially

when we had Bapa Bail in. I worried at points that I was fighting a losing battle, but I continued to fight it. I don't want to get arrogant or anything here - there were others without whom quag'd still be walking around - but I was a pivotal part of his death, and you say I didn't want it???

If I'd not wanted him dead, I'd've given him 48 hours instead of 24 (BOCWATT)

which brings me to:

I do actually find Adele slightly suspect - mostly because I've noticed several buddying-up type comments directed my way

yeah, I was kinda expecting that.
OK. I'm embarrased to admit it, but I do have a weisd (small) fangirl thing towards you ("The Mith; The Legend"), and then right when I'm worried Quag's slipping by you came into the game like a bloody Knight and flipped totally from BB's behaviour to getting him dead.
And now I'm all Sandra Bullock-y. It's very annoying, I half expect to spill coffee over you or something.
I'll try to dial it back. If you could say something I strongly disagree with, that'd help .

(by the way, if this is ever mentioned after the game ends lives will be lost )

Annnnd

back to DGB.

If I'd behaved

exactly

as I did yesterday and Quagmire had come up pro-town, would you now be saying that I done murdered a townie so I'm surely scum? I'm rather inclined to think you would.
It

is

possible for a townie to be aggressive. It's even possible for a townie to be rightfully aggressive towards someone who's developed an irrational wagonfever on them.

[Adele]

No posting until Monday or Tuesday, no access.

Today's Thursday.

Mod

: any chance of a prod on Aimee? ...please ?

[Adele]

Well hullow again, Miss Bullock! How come the sight of my avatar doesn't make you buckle at the knees and stutter? It should, because I was exactly like you when I was a young pup, meaning that there is a fair chance that you will grow into a goofball.

...
I'm trying, here, to show you a basic level of respect, keep my ire under control, and play straight.

You are deliberately saying things that I think you know I'll take offense at, for the fun of it. You call me immature and suggest I'll turn into you, when you

know

I don't appreciate your approach or your outlook.

No matter how amusing you find me, I'm going to have to ask - and I'm being serious here - that you show me more courtesy. I don't stand to be spoken to like that by anyone.

_____________________________

You reacted exactly as predicted as scum unexpectedly being bus'ed by her buddy on Day 1. With fire and outrage. As town, you would have dismissed it as Quaglunacy, and paid him far less attention.

1. Quag apparently decided to attack me before the game started, so his behaviour on that note is separate from his status as evildoer
2. Quag's pettiness towards me was only a very small part of why I pushed for his lynch. The main factor for me was that he expected to be treated as de facto townie regardless of antitown play for the whole of D1 (which if we'd not got scum so soon could've lasted through

several

town stumpings and lasted a more like a third to a half of the game).
3. Fire? I don't think I was particularly firey or outraged. Annoyed, irritated, frustrated at his stubborn lack of logic, yes. Firey and outraged, no.

If I'd behaved exactly as I did yesterday and Quagmire had come up pro-town, would you now be saying that I done murdered a townie so I'm surely scum?.

No! That would make no sense whatsoever. Only I am reckless enough to sink my fangs into a single player and not let go with nothing more than gut feeling, that's why I am a terrible player. What scum wants to drive a townie wagon, shovel the coal, and look out the caboose all at once? No... they only do that with each other to earn themselves townie points.

Are you saying that if Quagmire had turned up town yesterday, you'd think me a townie, (therefore, that my play makes sense in a townie), or that given

my

behaviour yesterday it's implausible that

Quagmire

could've

been town

?

[Adele]

1. Quag apparently decided to attack me before the game started, so his behaviour on that note is separate from his status as evildoer

Well, here comes the cheating again. I don't really know if he did. And I would need out-of-game information to be sure. With dates etc. Not fair to the game, and not relevant to alignment, because you might be scumbuddies just the same.

I thought this particularly notable.

Might

be? More to the point, not relevant to alignment?

His

behaviour,

his

cheating, not relevant to

his

alignment - yet you deduce

my

alignment off the back of said behaviour.

In any case, you might not like what he did, DGB (I don't either), but the town at large seems to consider it "canon". Your argument is built on sand.

Most likely two scum distancing; next most likely two townies and the scum is laughing. A townie and a scum? Least likely scenario.

Hmm. So, if this behaviour can manifest between two townies, why can't it manifest between a townie (behaving like one of the two townies in your scenario) and a scum (responding in kind) - for example, me, the innocent, and Quag, either:
a. doing as he'd seen townies do, yelling in circles (for the record, that's not how I see my D1 interaction with q, but my perception of your perception)
b. finding himself, as townies do, unable to extricate himself
c. being a stubborn scum
or
d. Actually telling the truth about not having read his role PM (I don't know how likely that is, but it's possible)

now, a question:

Do you think, given what was known at the time, that my level of aggression D1 was inappropriate?

[Adele]

I smell a fallacy...

No fallacy at all. As I explained. Most likely two scum distancing; next most likely two townies and the scum is laughing. A townie and a scum? Least likely scenario.

No fallacy.

Actually, I was referring to Adele's post...

Oh. I thought you meant DGB too. Lemme doublecheck that post...

okay. I can see one thing you might be referring to:

Are you saying that if Quagmire had turned up town yesterday, you'd think me a townie, (therefore, that my play makes sense in a townie), or that given my behaviour yesterday it's implausible that Quagmire could've been town?

You might think this is a false dichotomy. I disagree. Not all dichotomies are false, and I think this is a true dichotomy. If I'm in error, then please correct me.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to something else, enlighten me. On Monday [/quote]

[Adele]

Are you saying that if Quagmire had turned up town yesterday, you'd think me a townie, (therefore, that my play makes sense in a townie), or that given my behaviour yesterday it's implausible that Quagmire could've been town?

You might think this is a false dichotomy. I disagree. Not all dichotomies are false, and I think this is a true dichotomy. If I'm in error, then please correct me.

Is MoS scummy or what???

That's not a false dichotomy, it's a legitimate question.

You see, I wanted to give him a chance to answer my question before condemning him. Maybe there was something

else

in that post he thought was a fallacy, or maybe he was just mistaken (turns out he wasn't, but the point is, you jumped on him

first

opportunity you got).

In fact, scotmany I'll make you a deal: if you stump right now, and turn up town, I will immediately stump myself.

I find it difficult to believe that d3sisted thought there was

any

chance of scotmany taking him up on that (why would he?). D3sisted, did you think scotmany would do as you asked or was there an ulterior motive to your offer?

I'm not happy with DGB at all right now. I'd withheld judgement on max to a large extent because I didn't feel I'd seen enough of him. The DGB comes in and plays more to an agenda than the needs of the game, refusing to consider any factors to explain the phenomena that she has identified other than the explanation she decided on 10 minutes into playing the game. Right now she looks like she

wants

me to be scum - or wants others to think I am.

if I'm to vote anyone at this juncture, I'll:

vote: DrippingGoofball

- I'm really not at all happy with her contribution so far.
And no, Goof, this isn't an omgus.

on that note, where's silver? I'd hoped she'd stick around. An objective take on all this'd be helpful at this point.

[Adele]

I'm not quite sure how you can argue that a playstyle is scummy.

Hmm....I have a hard time agreeing with that. Yes, scummieness is not completely dependent on playstyle, but we do judge people based on their actions, and henceforth their playstyle. I don't think anyone can honestly say that they play the same way for all roles.

I 100% agree. I mean, that's

why

quag claimed as he did. And Seol's always telling me, no matter how I try, I'll always have tells. It's just how it is.

[Adele]

It doesn't, but refusing to stump is reminiscent of Quagmire.

But entirely distinct in... texture. Quagmire said that he wouldn't stump

even if we'd lynch him otherwise

Scotmany said that he would stump

only

if we'd lynch him otherwise

, which is the right pro-town play - as I wish you'd note. We lost Silver because he prematurely and unnecessarily stumped. If you and scotmany had done the same out of frustration with each other rather than sensible reasoning, and had happened to both be town, we'd now be in a much tougher place.

Once more:

people should refuse to stump until it is clear and acknowledged that they will be lynched if they do not.

Secondly, I just realized this. Korlash was also against the lynch, and yet desisted forgets to mention him at all and just focused on me and jdodge.

didn't Korlash hammer quag?

I just checked; yes, he did. While Korlash was back-and-forth a lot (I think I characterised him earlier as flip-flopping), and could be considered scummy for that, he was distinct from you, (scot), and Jdodge, who seemed decidedly

against

the lynch. You may disagree with d3sisted's analysis, but it looks internally consistent to me.

And his foolishness in risking his own neck to try to get your on the chopping block is not scummy, just really really dumb. I've not done the stats on this, but unless he's town and

really

sure you're scum, the "deal" he proposed would've damaged his side whichever it was. In fact, it's dumber play for scum than suspicious town.

DGB, another question, but just a general wonderingness . Max opted out of the game; he didn't get replaced because of hardcore lurking. Did he communicate with you (via the mod, for example) at all?
Before he left, he said he believed me to be town, but he left before saying why.

[Adele]

VC:
DrippingGoofball (3): (Aimee, Adele, MastermindOfSin)
d3sisted (2): (JDodge, scotmany12)
scotmany12 (2): (d3sisted, Korlash)
Adele (1): (DrippingGoofball)
JDodge (1): (mith)
Korlash (0):
Aimee (0):
Mith (0):
Mastermind of Sin (0):

Not voting (0):

9 players living -> 5 to lynch;

DGB is at L-2

, ie the

stump danger zone

. No-one else vote for DGB.

MoS: why didn't you say when you voted for DGB that it was L-2? Combined with this...

Does this L-2 stumping plan account for a reduction in the numbers of the town? For example, when it is 5 or 4 to lynch, do we still want to stump at L-2, or should that be bumped to L-1? We want to have a cushion before someone is lynched, but we also want to make it harder for scum to just push everyone into stumping due to the low numbers needed.

...it worries me that the oversight may have been deliberate.
Also MoS: yes, mith said he suspected me because I was behaving like X, and I wanted to explain why I was behaving like X to dispel his concerns. Defending one's behaviour when someone else's suspicions are raised by that behaviour is not susicious, it's normal mafia play. Unless, of course, you think I was lying - but I hardly think I'm the only person on the forum to think of mith as a VIP or find him charismatic.

<3 Aimee right now.

JDodge, you're still voting d3sisted, still haven't said why (though you

have

jumped on him for things he's done since then, that's not an explanation). I'm waiting for you to correct this error. I expect it by, say, next Tuesday, otherwise I'll begin considering voting / stump-pressuring you. (I'd actually forgotten about it until mith placed his vote )

[Adele]

Goof, I gotta take issue with your approach here. First you announced I was scum, and said that, given that I was scum, XYZ was also true.

Now you've decided that Aimee's scum and said that, given that Aimee's scum, XYZ is also true (including that I'm now not scum).

If you think that Aimee's scum, ok, then pursue that. Maybe she'll end up dead and you'll find out that she's scum, and you can

then

generalise from that. On the other hand, you could be wrong and she could be townie, in which case you'll have to start from scratch (plus you'll be, like,

soooo

embarrased ).

Don't get me wrong, suspect people, for reasons, and investigate your suspicions. Just don't start base it entirely on the premise that you're right about a given thing that you're

really sure

about. For example, you think Aimee followed me and MoS on voting you? She voted first.

Also, I don't get the parallel players 2 thing. Is this based on your knowledge that you're innocent? If so, then you know it'll only convince you - I can't use it and have to still suspect them. Besides, scum

have

been known to conspicuously

not

vote a townie.

There's a lot about your thinking I don't get. Could you spell it out more?

btw, this is not an exhaustive list of my issues with it, but, you know, only so much time...

[Adele]

What's there to say about Aimee. She has been lurking, and I dislike lynching lurkers.

Stabilising lurking as an effective scum strategy. This is an actual

thing

now; it's the responsibility of "The Town" (tm) to force people to do stuff, and "The Town" (tm) only really has one weapon - votes --> lynch.

Ergo, DGB is in the right. Of course, 2 votes is enough to be getting on with... but I'll need to see real contributions nowish or I'll consider unvoting DGB (boo!) to press harder.

[Adele]

And I dislike lynching lurkers, at least at this point in the game. Sure she can be scum, but nothing has convinced me of that yet.

When would be better? When we're in Lylo? Policy lynches better sooner than later, and if we

can

pressure her to play well, don't we want that to be asap?

Point is, if you don't say anything at all, no-one can ever convince anyone that you're scum. Which is why it's a good scum tactic. Which is why it is scummy.

[Adele]

But there

is

no pressure without the possibility of the lynch happening if the subject does not capitulate.

[Adele]

you guys post too darn much .

DGB, you're really on a knife-edge here. If Jdodge asked you to stump, would you? If so, then there's really no reason for you to ever get to -1. At the moment, you're coming off a little... megalomaniac. "I'll stump myself and none of you can stop me ahahahahahahahaha", you know? You're probably just jumpy, afraid of there being another night on account of you - if town,

BOCWATT

so I don't trust it - townies threatening to kill themselves always tweaks me, personally. Less so in this case for obvious reasons, but I'm not prepared to unvote you at this time.

[Adele]

...townies threatening to kill themselves always tweaks me, personally. Less so in this case for obvious reasons, but I'm not prepared to unvote you at this time.

What about SilverPhoenix? Didn't SilverPhoenix do it already? Was SilverPhoenix scum?

What about d3sisted and scotmany12 with one of them threatening to kill themselves if the other one refuses to stump and/or is scum or whatever? How come you do not subject them to the same scrutiny you lay on me? How come you haven't even considered voting for them? If you want to apply standards such as these, a cautious and articulate player such as yourself is expected to apply them uniformly and fairly.

Silverphoenix didn't threaten to do it - she just did it. d3sisted and scot are different too - they aren't

threatening

to stump, but

offering

to. It's a dumb move anyway which is causing them problems - but I'm not treating that offer to be evidence that they're town, any more than I consider your "threat" (it wasn't even exactly that) to be evidence that

you're

town.

[Adele]

Don't think much at all of K's reply to mith.

As for me switching to Aimee I'm not even really serious here. I just want to see what she says. I would still be inclined to go after Scot once this DGB thing the other half of the game is on is over with.

and if her reply's inadequate, then what? You've put yourself, if not

on

, then...

near

the fence.

Hammer from yesterday even I admit is suspicious. But there is really nothing I can say about it.

Yeah, that's the thing about scummy actions. You can pretend to be contrite and say you can't undo them, but the result you wanted is still nice and... resultant (okay, I'm very not articulate today).

My percentages again? Do you really think probabilities is the only thing I suck at? XD

Sarcasm doesn't change anything either. You said you were certain (or near-certain) that 2 people were scum, then said that other people might be too. It's a contradiction.

Buddying up to DGB? That's about what it is I think. More for fun then anything I suppose.

Weak.

Similarities to a newbie game... Yeah... That is really helpful...

..."how dare mith share his opinions with the town if they're not completely objective?", or "I can't change the past so this should be ignored" again?

DGB: There is a rather large difference in "being lynched while you're away" and "being asked to stump while you're away". That's all I'm saying - you made an awfully big fuss about the possibility of being "voted" while you weren't around, and I'm not understanding why.

eh, I think she was probably just feeling kinda paranoid and got het up about it. Couple years ago (exactly, actually, because it was thanksgiving's fault) I got in a back-and-forth with someone who ended up being cop. There was only the two of us around, so we got deeper and deeper into it without any outside influences telling us to lighten up or anything.
She was barking up a tree that turned out to be a lamppost.

It might be worth mentioning that MoS has made it his mission to "policy lynch" me in every game. Therefore, his vote is just an automatic one-vote handicap for me.

MoS, is this true? DGB, are you claiming his arguments should be ignored because of this?

Korlash,

Yeah I think Mr. Flay was hinted at that when talking to me a while ago. Something about how my "playstyle" means the town will have to automatically lynch me or something... Ehh whatever... *snap snap* I do what I want!

For that, I want you dead.
But it's cool, I'll go to Alaska, hunt you down after game finishes.

I refuse to engage in any sort of out-of-game feuding with MoS or anyone, and will not respond with tit-for-tat.

I'm still your nemesis though, right?

[Adele]

ooh, not too many posts but dang they're long...

and if her reply's inadequate, then what? You've put yourself, if not on, then... near the fence.

Um... If her reply is inadequate I hope she gets replaced

mods don't replace players because other players think they're being unspecific, but only because they're disappeared. A fluff/lurk combo, I suspect, would keep you satisfied - not quite dissatisfied enough, rather - to let someone flake to endgame, and you

cannot

let people do that. It's just plain bad play.
__________

Sarcasm doesn't change anything either. You said you were certain (or near-certain) that 2 people were scum, then said that other people might be too. It's a contradiction.

I said other people might be scum? Where? When? that doesn't sound like me...

1) Scotmany- 100% sure is scum.
2) JDodge- 99% sure is scum
3) MoS& Adele- only scum if JD and Scot both turn out town, very unlikely
4) Desisted- Also very unlikely but I cannot overlook the new stuff that has been said.
5) Mith- Mostly because Blapa was a bit... suspicious...

The

rest

I

more or less

think are town

ish

y

...

(emphasis added)
__________

..."how dare mith share his opinions with the town if they're not completely objective?", or "I can't change the past so this should be ignored" again?

See! We totally agree Mith should drop it! I don't get why you are so worked up over this... [/sarcasm]

1. this'd be easier to follow if you'd include the whole back-and-forth
2. sarcasm is not sufficient as a rebuttal. I asked a question and, oh look, you didn't actually answer it.
__________

look, I have been in 3 newbie games. all of them completed. From what I have seen Mith is only using one of them, and I think MoS is too. I mean yeah, Mith should think I am scum simply cause the only game he seems to be using I was scum in too! And MoS should think the same for town. Now... If they were to look at the other game, they may then get mixed feelings. AND my third game I was scum in too. So look at that one. However it isn't as helpful as it was my FIRST game on this site. I admit I played it a little weird.

We're not obligated to do hours of research on you. mith wasn't saying everyone should think you're scum because of that, but that it's a

factor

in

his

opinion. That's his right - and the full-disclosure thing works in his favour.
__________

Korlash - I find him suspicious because of his non-committal votes, particularly - demonstrated by his rash hammer on Quag for no real reason, and his questionable "pressure" vote on me.

So in other words demonstrated by my only two.. got it. Nice way of trying to make it sound worse then it is.

Only two what? If you're not even going to try to post good arguments or reasoned rebuttals, full sentences would be helpful.
__________

Um... for the record.. I did hammer him... how much more committal do I need to be? seriously...

well...

I am not convinced he is mafia, but I am convinced leaving him alive will not help us find the real scum. So I am willing to sacrifice two townies so that we can all stop being retarded and actually play tomorrow...

Plain and simple, we got F***ing lucky... I won't deny that. I am still firmly against what just happened, so all of you stop being F***ing retards and play this God Damn game right.

I'm not going to defend my hammer because it was a plain dumb move.

I just think lynch someone on the basis of them not looking a their role is kinda dumb.

The only thing I would classify as "Flip-Flopping" was my actual vote on Quag. Other then that I feel I have done no "flip-flopping" at all.

...you're 100% committed to your noncommitment. Is that what you meant?

With his every post, Korlash seems more scummy to me. Is he just completely not getting what he's supposed to be doing here?
__________

Is that so?... Then attack me for it so we can get back into this.

Also No, I don't remember.. Enlighten me...

again, quotes ftw. But also, if he did attack you, would you defend yourself or just blow it off with more sarcasm?

Where is that hand-smacking-forehead smilie when I need it?

...I really can't think of anyone you can blame for that but yourself

[Adele]

This is gonna take more than one post, so more later. Just FYI.

Korlash - okay, I hope you'll excuse me dedicating a large portion of my post to you - again - but it seems to me that we have a lot to discuss.

First off, a style issue. For example, here:

(emphasis added)

You emphasized the part about players I thought were town in response to a quote asking where I found players scum... That definitely makes sense...

More to the point the one you quoted was in no way a contradiction as Aimee said. It was merely a small "scum-dar" or suspicions list.

someone looking through your posts only has

no idea

what that's about, and would have to conduct a much fuller search just to know what's going on. I'd really be grateful, especially if you're quoting me, if you'd post the full quote (including the portions where I've quoted you - like in emails, where it goes back-and-forth with the whole convo sitting under the new message). It makes things so much easier later in arguments, for other players, and later in the game.

Second, to answer your point there:

Sarcasm doesn't change anything either. You said you were certain (or near-certain) that 2 people were scum, then said that other people might be too. It's a contradiction.

I said other people might be scum? Where? When? that doesn't sound like me...

1) Scotmany- 100% sure is scum.
2) JDodge- 99% sure is scum
3) MoS& Adele- only scum if JD and Scot both turn out town, very unlikely
4) Desisted- Also very unlikely but I cannot overlook the new stuff that has been said.
5) Mith- Mostly because Blapa was a bit... suspicious...

The

rest

I

more or less

think are town

ish

y

...

(emphasis added)

You emphasized the part about players I thought were town in response to a quote asking where I found players scum... That definitely makes sense...

You indicated only a mild lack of suspicion for those remaining players. Even if you say that you find them townish, you've still opted to distinguish MoS, Desisted, mith and I from the group you find townie, thus you're saying you find us, to some extent, scummy. So don't say now "I said other people might be scum? Where? When? that doesn't sound like me... " when you clearly are saying above that other players might be scum.

Out of time for now. More straight after work.

[Adele]

Adele: Probably the highest on my list after scot and JDodge. She's been going after DGB for the good part of the day, but I couldn't feel any commitment in her original vote.

What do you mean? Also, besides me, jdodge and scot, you seem to find everyone averageish (except mith, who you find townish). Is that right?

Korlash

: I could probably write 2000 words on you right now - which frankly doesn't appeal. I'm going to try to condense it down, for example by not using quote tags. If it's not gonna be possible to follow the argument through from start to finish anyway, what's the point?

1. "I'd be careful how you word things towards me. I am one of those players you never can tell what he will do next. Keep saying I have no idea what to do and I might just do something stupid."
-Why even make a threat like that, except to look scummier? Are you seriously saying I should handle you with kid gloves lest you self-destruct? Exercise some control, rather than expecting us all to do it for you.

2. "I know what I am suppose to be doing, I am scumhuinting in my own little way. Just because I won't get on the DGB wagon like you and your patsies doesn't mean you can start throwing insults like this around. "
-Scumhunting is not all you are supposed to be doing. When people become suspicious of you you are supposed to make account for it.

3. "Well i would be more convinced if you had left the third quote out as it had nothing to do with my vote. I have already said it 50 times that that is not why I hammered him. "
-a. It's not just you I'm trying to convince
-b. So the third quote was included in error. What about the others?

4. "Also I find it odd you would open saying: "ooh, not too many posts but dang they're long... " Implying there are only a few posts, yet you only seem to focus on me... Between now and the last time you posted I posted 6 times, Aimee posted once, DGB posted 4 times, mith twice, MoS 3, and Scot twice. So why only me?"
-Limit on sense of time/dedication/RSI. I had the most to say about you and when I was done, I was all talked out. Here's the thing: if person "A" warrants a full-on essay, then I'm less likely to then do the usual agree/disagree/analysis on the others. It's not a perfect system, but I have limited resources.

5. Your scumlist would be more helpful if you'd either (a) not allocated percentages or (b) made sure the percentages added up to 200% or at least (c) used the same scale for rating everyone - are you deliberately obfuscating how comparatively scummy you find jdodge?

6. DGB said "Korlash is too stump happy to be scum". I think the opposite. When you say things like "I already said i won't wait to be asked. The second I hit L-2 I'm stumping. Earlier if I can. So I am merely two votes away from being dead", that looks to me like you're threatening the town to discourage them from voting you - like Quagmire did.

7. "Exactly... It's what is commonly referred to as a "scumdar" here. I myself like to refer to it as a more aptly named "suspiciondar" myself. your attacking me for having more then two people on it? Please... Thats just sad... "
-OK, here's what I think just happened (paraphrased):

Korlash

: Aimee said I said other people [besides my top 2 scum choices] might be scum. When did I ever say such a thing?

Adele

: (quotes Korlash) "other people besides them might be scum"

Korlash

: Well, duh, of course other people might be scum, that's obvious.
-Would you care to correct me, Korlash? Do you see the relevance of my quotation now?

8. "I have like 3 reasons not to vote me. 1) As Adele pointed out I don;t really answer anything. And so voting me won't exactly help. It will however lead to 2) higher chance of a stump. Me stumping is not a bad thing but it is likely to happen whether I, you, or anyone else does or does not want it too. Unless you would rather #) ME being lynched. Quick lynched from the scum? Didn't happen to DGB why would it happen to me right? Unless I did something stupid like not stump and let you lynch me thus giving the scum another NK they would not have had... Interesting... "
-See 6. Scaremongering.

9. back to "I already said i won't wait to be asked. The second I hit L-2 I'm stumping.

Earlier if I can

."
-Earlier if you

can

? That doesn't even make sense; you can stump whenever the hell you want to - see silver. But that's not a scumtell, just a WTFtell.

That's mostly it.

I do wanna clear this up though:

With his every post, Korlash seems more scummy to me. Is he just completely not getting what he's supposed to be doing here?

I'd be careful how you word things towards me. I am one of those players you never can tell what he will do next. Keep saying I have no idea what to do and I might just do something stupid.

I know what I am suppose to be doing, I am scumhuinting in my own little way. Just because I won't get on the DGB wagon like you and your patsies doesn't mean you can start throwing insults like this around.

I'm

not

playing silly buggers with you here. I'm

not

trying to get a rise out of you. I'm

not

trying to make this game no fun.
I'm genuinely frustrated; what I'm seeing is valid points raised against you, but rather than justify your behaviour, explain or argue, you simply dismiss them with a sarcastic handwave, and that's just not good enough for me. The more you do it, the scummier you seem to me.

If you're pro-town then

I need to see it

, Korlash. If you continue acting like this, then the only sane conclusion I'll be able to come to is that you're scum. If you don't change, then whether it's because you don't want to, you're scared to, you don't think you should have to, or

even don't know how to

, I'll have to assume the worst - that you're a lumberjack.

So yeah, that question was a genuine one. Because if you

don't

know how to, then I'll be wanting to give you some hints, fast. You're new and I have some sympathy for that, but I've got a game to play here too, so it's a trade-off, y'know? I can't be going so far as to give a free pass but I've often thought it's only nice to continue IC'ing during someone's first few games. Put it this way: if, say, Stoof acted like you've been, my vote would be on him a while back because I know he knows better. ( I'm trying to think of a less

appallingly

patronising way to say all this, for the record, but fact is when you're new you don't know as much, and there's just no two ways about it).

The threat, if meant personally, annoys me, more than anything; really, what are you going to do? You're not the vig or the SK, if you're scum there's a 50% chance you'll be dead by N2, and even if you

do

nk me, I'll still probably win. I've kinda broken this game, so I'm not too scared

OK. Again, the vast bulk is based on Korlash, but he's been the primary topic of recent conversation. At the moment, I'm suspicious enough of him to vote for him, and I'm not going to hold back just because he's threatening to misplay, so:

unvote, vote: Korlash

don't worry, DGB, I'm sure I'll be back on you soon - although your recent posts on Korlash, while I disagree strongly with them, have a whiff of sanity to them (no offence).

Edit By Way Of Adding Something Before Posting: 1250 words on Korlash, but much of it was cut'n'paste.

[Adele]

What about Adele? First, she pushes hard on me (sweeeet), but then... she pushes hard on you... taking everything you say SERIOUSLY. How can anyone in their right mind take what you say seriously?

okay, is it just me who finds stuff like that unutterably frustrating? What am I supposed to do, ignore everything that the "crazy players" say? Give them a free pass? I can treat sarcasm as sarcasm, but when it's

all

you give me, I

have

to assume the worst, else it becomes dominant strategy. Korlash showed a few strange parallels with Quagmire - I mentioned at least one earlier - and I voted them for very similar reasons.

Do any of you think i would have acted like that if I were scum? After what Quag did? Are you serious? idiots...

Well is it still invalid? God... i told you all I play the same no matter affiliation...

Slight

contradiction there (plus hypocrisy after you told us not to insult you), Korlash. "I'd act like this irrespective of my WC, but if I were scum I wouldn't act like this". Plus you got wifom...
...ok, you know what? I don't think I misplayed, I think you did. We can discuss it in postgame, but right now, whatever.
___

Oh... It's JD again? coming in at just the right time to redo his vote... Lurk much...!?!?!?!?

Seriously, to be honest I think this proves he is watching but not commenting at all. you would think he would have had SOMETHING to say against/about/for/whatever me in the last 2 pages... But no.... nothing...

Fair point. JDodge, anything to say for yourself? Did you see the Korlash argument? If so, what were your thoughts and why did you not contribute them?

vote: Dripping Goofball

(well, I

did

promise )

FOS: JDodge, Scotmany

I'm going to have to go over DGB with a fine-tooth comb. JDodge, Scot and Aimee all deserve some quality attention right now , but I had issues with her for a reason and I don't want her to slide by while I go Lurker-Hunting.

[Adele]

Hmmmm.....I thought he was town. *shrug I guess I can't say much.

If it's obvious to you, and obvious to me... what to you think of the players that did not, or pretended not to, see what we so clearly saw?

1. Difference between "thought" and "knew"
2. You

claim

you saw something. I'm still convinced it was a mirage, and you overtrusted Korlash because his playstyle matched yours (something I used to do with Seol, back in the day).
3. He agrees he was self-contradictory.

Goof, you didn't like the stump. You've made that clear. Why are you mad at the players who voted him, not even into the danger zone, and not at HIM, for unnecessarily suiciding? He misplayed, and he didn't even apparently mean to stump (which makes him a liar to boot, and you know my stance on that - and I know yours and that discussion will go nowhere).

[Adele]

I think mith's saying that in the case where MoS

is

scum, he's trying to link himself to me, wheras if

I'm

scum, this connection is coincidental. After all, he doesn't say it's

likely

that MoS is trying to buddy up to me.

Did I misunderstand that? It sounded as though you wanted me to explain mith's argument, but that seems odd...

[Adele]

Goof, you didn't like the stump. You've made that clear. Why are you mad at the players who voted him, not even into the danger zone, and not at HIM, for unnecessarily suiciding? He misplayed, and he didn't even apparently mean to stump

You keep calling it a misplay... I don't see it as such... I think you are trying to alleviate all the pressure from my stump off yourself and onto.. ME!

FoS: Adele

You stumped when you didn't have to, man.

Sorry so little - short on time gotta run

[Adele]

STOP IT!!!

Ya'll have

gotta

stop seeing stumping as a "screw you", or a defensive technique prior to it really being needed, or a bloody

interesting diversion

! Folk stumping when they don't have to will

lose

us this game.

Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please

please

no-one else stump

unless they have to

.

DGB, anything you get to say after stumping's a pyrrhic victory. Okay?
please just get

over

it.

[Adele]

...
^^^ was aimed at DGB, silver, Korlash, and anyone who's wandering around thinking "Today is a good day to Stump".

[Adele]

I'm not sure I agree with you, mith. For starters, we can't be sure that the treestumps'll be sufficiently active (I know I'll post less), and it also occurs that if we're thinking in those terms then there's a danger someone will get to four real votes before we stop and think about them stumping, and the scum'll have a chance to quicklynch and only implicate one of them - which is a 3-for-1 deal, so that'd be really bad.

I think them keeping us up to date on their feelings is enough. Of course they can "pseudovote" if they really want to but I see that more of a FOS. Your idea just seems too complicated.

[Adele]

I just don't really see the upside, or rather, it seems minimal to me.

[Adele]

I think I have to agree with JDodge about DGB blindly following the stumps.
Furthermore, I found your selfappraisal in Post 724 rather scummy:

My agenda is very clearly a pro-town agenda. A being spokestump for the stumps is as townie as it gets.

FOS DGB

I disagree with DGB here. It's the classic divestment of responsibility. According to mith's stats, a random pick favours the scum, so they probably want a random-ish outcome that'll probably be dead townies without any possible accusation being leveled against them, and wagons against them "wrong by definition".

To me what DGB's doing is similar to what I felt Quag and Kor were doing. However, while Quag was scum, Kor wasn't, and DGB's probably more similar in nature to Kor than Quag. So instead of pushing her

for

this, I'm gonna yell at her to darn well change and then get back to the question of "is she scummy?"

Unvote

DGB STOPPIT!

(see how I follow through on my plan? That's the towniest thing ever so you know I'm a GG )

[Adele]

To me what DGB's doing is similar to what I felt Quag and Kor were doing. However, while Quag was scum, Kor wasn't, and DGB's probably more similar in nature to Kor than Quag. So instead of pushing her

for

this, I'm gonna yell at her to darn well change and then get back to the question of "is she scummy?"

This seems to me like an attempt to back down from your DGB attacks and get on her good side right as people get a little more suspicious of you. The timing doesn't feel right, and you know damn well that DGB would never do something as

stupid

as changing her playstyle to benefit the town, so it's an exercise in futility. This doesn't feel sincere at all coming from you.

FoS: Adele

So the question is, why does Adele-scum no longer like the DGB wagon? Why is she trying to back down from it? After a divestment from the wagon, where would she go, who would she take the opportunity to pressure instead? Interesting...

1. Are people getting suspicious of me? It seems to be about the same as always to me - little ups and downs, some folk trust me more, some less - nothing to make me panic
2. My point's exactly the same as yours from earlier - that it's a tough read because acting like a crazy person is not necessarily scummy for DGB. It pisses me off some, but I don't want the game to go down the toilet because I'm off having a paddy.
3. Why is changing playstyle to benefit town stupid, if she's town? I'm trying to give her the opportunity to demonstrate her townieness to me - I'm most certainly not giving her a free card.

To conclude: Wuh? Your argument makes no sense to me.

[Adele]

To me what DGB's doing is similar to what I felt Quag and Kor were doing. However, while Quag was scum, Kor wasn't, and DGB's probably more similar in nature to Kor than Quag. So instead of pushing her

for

this, I'm gonna yell at her to darn well change and then get back to the question of "is she scummy?"

This seems to me like an attempt to back down from your DGB attacks and get on her good side right as people get a little more suspicious of you.

I've checked back, and I really only think one person expressed a higher level of suspicion of me shortly prior to my unvote - you. So if that was making me nervous, why would I jump off someone you want dead?

Jdodge hasn't posted since Thursday, nor scotmany since Wednesday. Since the 23rd, Aimee's only posted a placeholder (she didn't post over the weekend like she said she'd try to in that post).

Mod

, can we get another prod on Aimee, please?

[Adele]

BTW - This is the post that convinced me that Adele is very likely town:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 142#851142

Appeals to emotions sometimes work with me; she sounded very sincere. Like I said earlier, mafia is theater; and on this stage, she acted townie with poignant conviction.

Heh, that's ironic - like you said earlier, I don't get the whole "theatre" thing, so that wouldn't convince me (but don't worry; I'm already convinced )

[Adele]

You *do* realize that DGB already discussed this point before you made either of these posts and that between us we've already covered nearly everything you said, right?

I didn't know the matter had been settled. DGB defended me, but I don't think that means I don't have to explain myself too - since I'm the best person to comment on my motives.

What is #3 talking about? I have no clue what you're referring to

I didn't get this:

you know damn well that DGB would never do something as

stupid

as changing her playstyle to benefit the town

Some of JD's posts are pretty scummy; I've never been fond of his play, but his most recent post reads as a pre-emptive defence of excuses for putting off stumping as long as possible, and I don't like the question aimed only at mith, rather than deal with the feelings of the town at large (I'm worried that he's trying either to discredit mith, who's said that he's not quite on form recently, or convince mith to change his mind and push the "town should follow mith" angle, although that last one's probably just my paranoia - the issues in play don't seem at the forefront of his mind).

[Adele]

Oh... It's JD again? coming in at just the right time to redo his vote... Lurk much...!?!?!?!?

Seriously, to be honest I think this proves he is watching but not commenting at all. you would think he would have had SOMETHING to say against/about/for/whatever me in the last 2 pages... But no.... nothing...

Fair point. JDodge, anything to say for yourself? Did you see the Korlash argument? If so, what were your thoughts and why did you not contribute them?

I don't think JDodge ever actually answered that question. JDodge?

[Adele]

Some of what Korlash raises is sketchy, but there's no doubt that JDodge and Scot have been very close in behaviour throughout the game. I don't like that, after all this, they're

still

voting together:

JDodge (2): (DrippingGoofball, Mith)
d3sisted (2): (JDodge, scotmany12)
DrippingGoofball (1): (Mastermind of Sin)
scotmany12 (1): (d3sisted)

And they've made few and far-between attempts to justify it.

Thing is, though (BOCWATT) I don't think scum would so closely align with each other. I think it's more probable that one of them is scum and has successfully got the townie into a mirroring situation (socially, this is where you and someone else mirror each other. The cool thing is,

you

start out subtly copying them, then when you move, they'll start copying you. If they start deviating then you copy them again for a while then switch back). Trying to figure out "who's following who" in that scenario is unhelpful.

Individually, I find them both scummy, but scotmany only slightly scummy at this time, wheras JDodge is very very scummy indeed, and didn't answer the question Korlash asked ages ago even close to satisfactarily. JDodge, did you see the burgeoning case on Korlash; did you see him being voted; did you see him considering stumping. If not, then why not say that it was just a coincidence you appeared when you did so I can run a sitesearch on you and determine the truth?

Vote: Jdodge

That's L-2, everyone; don't vote Jdodge

I'd really like a substantive self-defence from JDodge.

Now

.

[Adele]

My vote post was hastily constructed (with an exam before and after, why did I spend my lunchtime here? Oh yeah, because I am

crazy in the head

), but I'm comfortable with my vote. Slightly

more

comfortable now it's L-3, so I might have been premature, but I don't feel like there's anyone (except Korlash, who's not a liability here) looking to jump on them, so the risk of lynch seemed minimal to me.

I'm glad it's gone down slightly, but at the same time I'd like it to go up slightly. I think my ideal scenario is where there are 2.5-2.75 votes on JDodge (but that seems unlikely to happen). It just seems way too early in the game for a third vote to be a huge deal, and JDodge's behaviour warrants a third vote with 8 living and at least one dead guy hanging around. Votes have somehow gotten condensed very early.

I find it weird. Just for my sanity (won't be a goofball won't be a goofball won't be a goofball ) is anyone else finding it weird?

But, no, I'm not planning to unvote JDodge prior to his self-defense.

[Adele]

We've actually been extremely lucky with replacements - 3 replacers all very well-known onsite (the most recent of which, I take credit for (oh, I suppose Adel should have

some

)).

Plus long-termers were drawn to the setup - the treestump role was described in MD a while back and it's the sort that'd stick in the mind of a considered player, because it's elegant and unique and intreguing.

[Adele]

You think I was following you; I understand that. I disagree, and wanted to explain how I felt towards JD and also why my vote post was... scratchy.

One thing I

did

miss: am I to understand that you didn't unvote because you didn't want JD at L-2 yet, but because my vote on him made you think he was more likely to be townie, then?

[Adele]

Oh, Aimee's been replaced . Adel expects to be able to contribute as of this weekend, though, so you're right that we aren't talking about a quickforcedstump situation.

[Adele]

I'm sorry for my recent absence - I've been very busy studying, and so when I've had free time I've generally been hurried, and unable to catch up on recent events. I'll post tomorrow.

Adel, you wanna talk about theft?

Really?

[Adele]

Since Adele invited me to join this game by PM,
and since she and I aren't in another game together,
and since the avatar, sig line and location duplication will cause difficulties in telling our posts apart,
I've concluded that her motivation is anti-town.

I think she should be discouraged from keeping the changes.

. It wasn't really meant to last this long. I just wanted to tweak you - while I accept it's not

really

your fault, I'm not fond of the confusion that goes on even with different avs and whatnot. For example, prior to your arrival people didn't misspell my name. Ho hum, though, right?

vote: Dripping Goofball

I wasn't able to resolve the d3sisted/scotmany/JDodge riddle.

MoS is town.

I think JDodge is also town, but I can't formulate a decent defense of him. I've tried repeatably.

Mith is an enigma

Adele may very well be DGB's well-distanced and well-coordinated scumpartner, but I can easily see DGB being scum independent of Adele. I want DGB's alignment revealed so that I can accurately evaluate Adele's actions during the previous DGB wagons.

I don't agree with you about JDodge, or (really) mith (he's a tough read and always was gonna be, but he seems town to me atm). I can see where you might come from drawing a link between me and DGB...

DGB: "Vote adele she's evil she's the bad guy look at the crazy heavy-level distancing with quagmire she's obviously evil only co-scum would attack each other so hard!" kind of thing?

What bothers me more about DGB's post than the omission is that she seemed to find it pretty compelling evidence for scot being scum instead of JDodge, and was already consistently stating that she felt MoS was scummier than both, but left her vote on JDodge (the vote leader at the time) anyway. Presumably her defense of this would be the Korlash-proxy thing, but now that she's being replaced I guess we're not going to get an answer about it. That play makes perfect sense for the DGB/scot pairing JDodge suggested (but also for the "I'm nuts" play that we love so much from DGB).

valid

(On the plus side, I am hoping I will find The Fonz easier to read.)

Right there with you. I've been waiting for a good read on "that guy" for most of the game, between max and DGB. I'm at the point now where I do think the fonz is scum, but the fact that there's a new player in there who can make account (DGB strikes me as the type to ask a mod to pass notes on to a replacement) and potentially give me a really solid call, then that's great.

Where did Adele go?
Is she a tactical lurker?

Never have, never will. It's anti-game. Like saying I "won" at monopoly when I didn't play because I'm one of the only two who didn't go bankrupt...
Been offsite for at least 48 hours. Had 2 professional exams today. No clue if I passed or not - ask me on 28th Jan. Sorry for flaking in the meantime, but I just couldn't justify time away. No more excuses til past Christmas, though, I don't think...

BTW, I count 37 posts in other threads since Adele's second to last post in this thread last Wednesday. So about 1/20th of her time spent typing mafia posts is devoted to this game? She isn't in 20 games.

...That would've mostly been in the session when I posted here. Most of those posts would've been short posts - read 2-3 posts and insert my opinion, as one can in GD. Here, I'm obliged to read, think, consider, type, post. It's a taller order. Fewer

number

of posts here than elsewhere, but I probably spend more

time

on this game than any other single game (certainly I was up to a week ago, when I went this phase, but for the most part I've been highly active), and more time on this game than the discussion forums combined.

I've

never

avoided a game because I'm under suspicion. I have trouble prioritising them when they're unutterably dull (though of course I fight that instinct), but this thread has never been dull for me - just somewhat verbose at times.

Of course, you can't take me at my word when I say I don't tactically lurk, so I'll be sure to restate it in postgame

[Adele]

I think The Fonz made a nice try, but I ended up feeling reassured that my vote is on the right guy.

How so?

[Adele]

1. Obviously, the first thing that has to come up is the day 1 play, and his defense of Quag. There's not much to say there.

Addressed already with my last post.

Yes, after being asked to defend your actions many many times you eventually said:

What were you wrong about?

SilverPhoenix. You. Most likely d3sisted. Oh, and there was the Quag thing, but I wasn't really

wrong

technically, more naive I suppose.

...is that it? "I woz rong"? You

were

"wrong" about Quagmire. In fact, as you yourself point out, you're impact so far on the game has been to the benefit of the scum - as you yourself say:

Adel: The reason you can't come up with a defense of me is because there is no defense for me. I was wrong, and nothing more; and people are using that against me more than my other actions.

faaantastic. You get to push an antitown agenda from start to end and if anyone calls you up on that, you can say "whoops" and then attack people for not dealing with your "other actions" (what does that even mean?).

Question for you: someone pretty consistently defends scum, attacks town, and when pulled up for it, degenerates to... "making snarky comments". Do you:
a) think that person is scum
b) think that person is town

Sorry that this post was so caustic, but your last post really seemed to be asking for it.

[Adele]

Apologies both for the wall-o-text and the way it jumps about. I've not even stuck any smilies in; the research wore me out.

Adele, essentially what I'm saying is that I realize that I was wrong, but I still stand by what I said; I'm not going to fabricate some excuse for my actions when I still firmly believe they were justified. Does this change your question thereafter? I'd like to know before I answer that.

Do you mean the question below?

Adel: The reason you can't come up with a defense of me is because there is no defense for me. I was wrong, and nothing more; and people are using that against me more than my other actions.

faaantastic. You get to push an antitown agenda from start to end and if anyone calls you up on that, you can say "whoops" and then attack people for not dealing with your "other actions" (what does that even mean?).

Question for you: someone pretty consistently defends scum, attacks town, and when pulled up for it, degenerates to... "making snarky comments". Do you:
a) think that person is scum
b) think that person is town

No, I think my question's valid. You see someone push an agenda that it turns out, after the fact, would've been disadvantageous to town. Again. And Again. And Again. At what point do you say, yeah, these actions

do

convict you, regardless of the "other actions" (and I'm still not sure what you meant by that), because your stated inclinations and the avenues you have pursued seem so disproporttionately antitown that the odds of you being town correspondingly have dropped beyond the point where we're likely to be able to risk holding you on to endgame?

On 3, yeah, I got that. Why did you feel SP was a more worthy pursuit? What changed from the end of day 1 to the beginning of day 2?

I can't remember what exactly changed my mind. Sorry.

...

Wow

.From:

What? After that long drawn-out tirade against Adele you vote for me? Is that a mistake or do you actually have a case against me?

Adele doesn't seem like scum, you do. I'm pretty sure I outlined why yesterday.

to:

Second, the SilverPhoenix stumping; I also stand behind everything I said there as well. I truly believe everything I said.

which, 1) isn't a defence, and 2) um, what

did

you say? Can you point it out to us now? I guess not because you finally plump for:

I can't remember

OK.
Also.

And now you are defending someone whose alignment you don't even know? That seems like scum trying to shut up a dumb-ass scum partner to me.

Everyone, please read the bolded part

very carefully

. Can you see what I see?

I still can't. What

did

you see?

Next on the agenda,

What have you seen desisted do this whole game that was protown. I read those five posts, and they are void of detail. THERE IS NOTHING IN THEM.

This is untrue. There were some very firm opinions there.

Well, I think I have a solution to this standoff:

/confirm

Sounds like an excellent plan. And those who refuse to stump, we lynch. Furthermore, by having more players stumped instead of lynched/NKed, we have unbiased viewpoints coming from confirmed townies.

Understandably, anyone who objects this plan will be seen as obvscum, so by unanimous vote, this plan will take effect as of the start of the game.

Don't noone lynch anyone!

Yeah, I'm definitely going for the L-2 stump idea. Basically, NOONE hammers, and the lynchee stumps themselves voluntarily. This means we avoid nights, and we lose townies only to stumpings.

Vote quagmire

for not wanting to kill himself.

HoS: Quagmire

for now, I'll vote when we have an update on the votes.

Mod: Votecount please?

Why haven't we lynched Quagmire yet?
I thought we had established quite clearly that anyone refusing to be stumped is to be considered scum. Plus, I'm not buying his "blind playing" act one bit. It looks to me like he's trying to find himself a convenient excuse to dodge all of the questions directed at him by turning this into a paradox. It gives him a reason to "be" town, even if he is actually scum.

Personally, I think scot wins that argument. Of course, if you weren't there at the time you might not have a sense of "what happened when", but looking back, all of those points were raised by others before him; the early "yay plan" stuff was insufficient and I

think

(too much research ) we actually exhorted him for more content which lead, in time, to what could be easily seen as copycat quaghating. To me, it's not strong on novel ideas or on opinions that aren't already a strong town view.

But how the hell does this suggest that quag is likely town? I said I don't see scum doing this. THAT DOESN'T mean I think his is town. IT MEANS I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT HE WAS SCUM TRYING TO PULL A GAMBIT. This did not mean he was town however, or scum. Just that I believed he didn't look at his role pm. You are stretching.

Aaand, fonz wins that one. Scot, you were disinclined to go ahead with a lynch on someone for doing something because you claim it seems unlikely as a scum gambit, when, if it

were

a scum gambit, it would be highly beneficial to the scum side for people to believe it. Why wouldn't scum pull a gambit that'd benefit them if they're believed? Because they're unlikely in that situation to

be

believed? WIFOM. You might not like that categorisation, but that's your problem; "I don't think scum'd do that" is a recognised form of wifom, and whether or not it's posed as a question is irrelevant.

JDodge 1, Adel 2, Fonz 3 at the moment, but that ordering is possibly largely affected by the order they came into the game.

I don't know if I'm ready to make a call on scotmany yet. The three you list have been pinging my 'dar off and on for ages, but I don't want to dismiss scot as potential scum

because

of that point, especially when scot's arguments throughout the game seem so

wilfully

wrong. He might be missing the point entirely, or he may be scum deliberately not paying close attention, or he may be scum missing the point entirely.

I'm going to withhold judgement on this one just a little while longer.

[Adele]

OK.
Also.

And now you are defending someone whose alignment you don't even know? That seems like scum trying to shut up a dumb-ass scum partner to me.

Everyone, please read the bolded part

very carefully

. Can you see what I see?

I still can't. What

did

you see?

I saw it as well, tbf.

Yes...? Saw what?

It's like I'm standing in a parking lot and everyone's looking at the sky. So I look, but I just see, well, the sky. So I say, "What are you looking at?" and the only reply I get is "That" *point*.

[Adele]

Oh. Heh, I even noticed that as a possibility and dismissed it. Silver's starting out saying "you don't know his alignment" - Scot's (was he talking about scot?) claim - to highlight how odd scot's behaviour is if that's true. I read it as a reductio ad absurdum argument

against

the idea that scot didn't know quag's alignment.

And if someone had answered that question way back when, I could have said so then.

It's not laid out perfectly, but is structurally similar to: "So, you're town, yet you quicklynch townies left right and centre. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark"

[Adele]

I'm tempted to stump right now just to prove you wrong. And then I could sit here and laugh in your faces as you wonder how you lost sight of the true scum. And then I would remember that you never lost sight, because you are the scum.

I get it now. The scum is not d3sisted; it is DGB and scot. I am sorry that I did not see this before; but now I have found clarity.

Unvote, vote: scotmany12

Scot is following me because he knows me to be town; he wants to set me up to take the fall and DGB is helping him with setting up an alibi for him later. DGB's buddying up to confirmed innocents as well as helping scot out in this way tells all.

So the question is this: should I stump?

Why don't we all agree that The Fonz is the second scum and lynch him? We're at a practical deadlock between scotmany and JDodge, but I'd rather lynch The Fonz over either of them.

I'm not prepared to switch to Fonz. I know this role seems a revolving door, but I want to here more from this replacement before I'll consider voting him.

I have, however, been rereading at length, and I'm not happy with scot. We can argue back and forth to the end of time, but I just think it's that much likelier that he's scum than that mith's right about him being sincere.

And, considering he's been a reasonable part of discussions and has probably said all he's can to justify his behaviour,

Stump, please, Scotmany

[Adele]

More people favored JDodge over scotmany before you replaced in, and you were the major proponent in switching the lead over to scotmany, forcing him to stump.

I don't think you mentioned this before. Why is that?

Fonz, tomorrow (if I can - otherwise more like Sunday) I'm going through every single post by Max, DGB and you. If you could produce a commentary on how you think the game as a whole has gone, what you thought of Korlash's and Silver's stumpings, and your views of everyone left living.

I'd also be

really

grateful if the three tree stumps would go through their three top scumpicks and why.

mod[/i], I know she's dead and all, but could you by any chance prod Silver? I don't know offhand if Kor'd be due for one too if he were alive...

[Adele]

Adele, are you scum?

No.

Adele: Don't like the "hammer". Can you explain this, Adele? You were voting for JDodge, and even in the post where you asked scot to stump I didn't really feel like you gave much reason to prefer scot over JDodge. I could understand you asking him to stump if you were the only one on JDodge or something, but when it was essentially tied?

Yeah, I should've explained better. Looking at JDodge's posts I got the same that I perennially get with DGB. Everything seems horrible and wrong to me, and my instinct is to call it scummy, but when I really think about it, I see that it just raises my hackles to the point where I have trouble telling scum from town. Some people just look scummy to me regardless of alignment, and I think JDodge is a bit like that, so I can only judge him on his actions, not on his words (well, I can grade his scummyness down when he gives a worthwhile defense, but not up when he says something that makes the logic centres of my brain want to crawl away and die).

I realised, on the other hand, that while scot produced the same result on occasion, it wasn't consistent. His manner doesn't provoke ire, but what he says does. I felt confident, therefore, that it wasn't a false tell as I am paranoid that JDodge's might be (and still want to hold off judging Fonz as DGB would tend to be).

So, re-evaluating on that criterion, I found scot the scummier. I should've explained fully at the time, but for some reason thought "he's been a reasonable part of discussions and has probably said all he's can to justify his behaviour" was a full explanation. I think I'd just been told I had five minutes to finish up.

vote: The Fonz

Oh no you don't. You don't claim to be convinced to shift your vote by the logic of someone's argument, then immediately vote them when the target of that argument comes up town, with no explanation.

Evidently, she

can

.

FOS: JDodge

for the "accidental" L-1. Been happening here there everwhere in this game, but I think people should know by now, and 4 to lynch was mentioned in the stump scene post.

As was mentioned before, Bapa Bail was not a newbie, but NAR under an alt. Taking replaced-players behavior into account, fair enough, but I hope in this case an exception will be made and I won't be judged on the basis of a banned teenager.

Especially since the first thing mith did was to completely undermine any "buddying" headway that his predecessor had made, and since in this particular game is all-vanilla.

I still feel like we are missing an opportunity to get the most out of the stump role and give the stumpees some actual input as far as votes. In the absence of other considerations, just turning over the lynch/stump decision to them would probably be best play really - they're confirmed innocent, whereas 2 of the 7 living players are scum scum scum.

I agree - that's why I asked them to say who they found scummy.

Scot and Korlash's lists combined throw up the names:
d3sisted (2)
Fonz (2)
JD (1)
MoS (1)

The one thing I

would

say this throws up (JD and Fonz seem to be the prime suspects, with MoS a short way behind) is d3sisted, who's suspected by both of the "differently alive" players who are actually here, yet mostly ignored by the living community.

[Adele]

Actually, I just thought it was noteworthy that the confirmed-townies suspected him, but no wagon has formed (suggesting there may be some form of derailment) - but you may have a point.

[Adele]

Well, mostly that theory appeals because JD and Fonz are both such objects of suspicion, but not together; it's tempting to attach each of them to third parties that they might be scum with.

god, do I need to reread. A thousand posts is a lot

[Adele]

Scot and Korlash's lists combined throw up the names:
d3sisted (2)
Fonz (2)
JD (1)
MoS (1)

The one thing I

would

say this throws up (JD and Fonz seem to be the prime suspects, with MoS a short way behind) is d3sisted, who's suspected by both of the "differently alive" players who are actually here, yet mostly ignored by the living community.

d3sisted's been silent since I posted this. It's been a week (9 days since his last post), but on the other hand it's also been a holiday season.

So, got anything to say, d3sisted?

[Adele]

Yeah I say... games on pause until Jan 5ish...

What was this post in reference to?

[Adele]

So to answer your question, I would. Your calling me scum now Adel? Yeah... Why don;t you stfu for a change.

what in the hell are you talking about?

He was providing himself as a reductio ad absurdum contradiction of your theory; since you weren't making certain or universal claims, his response was inappropriate (and somewhat confrontational - I don't think it was very cool of him to tell you to shut up like that).

However, it is noteworthy that the pattern described was displayed by a pro-town player.

[Adele]

Korlash, what do you think of Adel? I ask because you've been somewhat confrontational with her of late, but didn't include her in your suspicions list earlier

So... with JD still toping my list, I think the town should hit up MoS and Fonz next, then if one of them is lynched/stumped. Move on to D3sisted/JD. Hot potatoeing between them in pairs.

Are you just trolling?

[Adele]

Fonz, JD, desisted... in that order (this minute).

[Adele]

This is the second game I've been called a troll in.. Perhaps you guys will answer me.. what the hell is a troll?

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response. [1] The rise of the expression "concern troll" reflects an expanded definition of troll as someone whose posts have the primary goal of disrupting or derailing an internet community. "Troll" is also used in a broader pejorative sense to question the good faith of any Internet user who has annoyed the person using the term.

["Adele"]Korlash, what do you think of Adel? I ask because you've been somewhat confrontational with her of late, but didn't include her in your suspicions list earlier

I hate her.. literally.. as a person... so you will never get a good answer from me... [/quote]What? Why?

[Adele]

I think more pressure on scotmany12 is a good thing at this point.

unvote:The Fonz. vote:scotmany12

Yes I am aware this is another flipflop on him, but I'm starting to accept the idea that while scotmany12 wasn't exactly following JDodge, he easily could've gone along with him as cover. I think d3sisted's chances of being scum are normal for the number of players left.

Also I have it setup in my mind that if scotmany12 = town then JDodge = town.

My opinions were actually shifted by reading another player's (The Fonz's) posts. A rather unusual experience for me.

Why is JD your second pick for scum if scotmany being town means JDodge is town in your mind?

Adele had JDodge second in her list. Adel said she thought JDodge was town if Scot was.

lol

That'd only be half as funny if not for the fact that Adel then mea culpa'd

[Adele]

I'm really sorry for my absence; as this is my fave game, I thought I'd best leave it til last and now I'm out of time. I'll post tomorrow.

I will say that I am (still) extremely suspicious of JD, but also paralysed with indecision . I'm not joining the call to stump tonight.

[Adele]

I'm willing to join JDodge's call to stump; while the Max-DGB-Fonz trifecta has been patchily very scummy, JDodge has been consistently low-level chaotic evil. I'm back and forth, but I've been close to the edge on JDodge for pretty much the whole game; maybe it's time for me to trust that instinct (and the evidence).

It might be worth noting that, while this puts him at -2 according to mith, it puts him at -1 considering only living players.

[Adele]

a. I was voting for JDodge *before* scot stumped. You were only on him "when no-one else was" by virtue of posting before me (and then, me being slightly cautious with all the votes flying around and waiting a bit to do a reread).

Yes, you waited for a re-read. I had no such doubts.

mith's point was that without the votecleansing aspect of stumping, you would not have been the only one on him at any point (or at the point he's referring to; not doing the research is tech ).

And you most certainly have

not

been the biggest driver of the JDodge wagon.

You switched away from him.

I'm kinda tempted to switch to you now on a LAL basis.

Call me ultra paranoid, call me self-obsessed (the latter is certainly true), but I don't hugely like this comment. I've been a strong and vocal supporter of LAL for a long time, and have argued in its favour quite recently. And then, shortly after I switch Fonz from first to second place in favour of JD, who by most calculations is at stump but mith is saying is still one off, mith presents LAL in an argument against fonz in a case where it's clearly a subjective matter (who's the strongest on a wagon's often a matter of opinion, as I think it is here). Makes me want to go back and see how mith and JD have interacted throughout the game. Doesn't make me want to do it

much

because that constitutes work (nearly got locked in at my place of work last night because I stayed online here so late), and it's

probably

a non-starter, but... it did seem out of place.

mith: are you saying here that you consider "I've been the biggest driver of the JDodge wagon today" to have definitively and decidedly been a lie, or do you think that the Fonz may have been sincere?

[Adele]

b. You are flat out wrong on the game theory.

Side note: Adele, I notice you did not choose to take a firm stand either way on this in your post. Where do you stand?

I think the tree-stumps are distinguishable from the living players, not just because they are confirmed innocent, but also because they stumped. Without wanting to be nasty, I think the logic and quality of the stumps is not quite as high as that of the living players, even taking into account that a significant minority of living players are evil.

I think the stumps should be used as inspiration, and their thoughts, ideas and suggestions should always be considered. I don't (currently), however, think they should be added back to the vote/stump-call count.

It's not a certain position, but I think I'm basically with Fonz on this, with the proviso that when we're stalled out, we should look to them to give a starting direction with their input.

[Adele]

Whoa.

Okay, first up - we need to be

really

careful about not letting someone get to two votes. If they do, and the scum pile on and quicklynch, it's game over. Thank heavens for small virtues - we're in LyLo, but not StLo.

I'm feeling pretty outclassed by the other living players right now.

Everyone's probably feeling that way. Because of the nature of the game, the scum aren't picking off the stablest and most-respected players by night, so wheras in a usual game the living and dead list would probably be equal-ish quality at this point, in this game there's a definite split (with one particular subversion; Pooky, who

was

NK'd).
For that reason, I'm tempted to distrust the less strong players on the list, because they're the members of the less-strong-players set who've mysteriously survived.
But of course, I'm also very tempted to distrust the

more

strong players, because they're less readable/ better able to hide their wickedness. So that really doesn't help.

That said, though:

If you truly wanted the credibility of being a stump, why wouldn't you stump now?

/sigh.

Hang on though,

I'm not trying to; I'm pointing out her blatant lie which seems to me like a scum's desperate final attempts.

Adel, got a response to this? Plus

i'll give my living vote to the stumps for the sake of the town.

This has been discussed on a number of levels, and (IIRC) rejected on the basis that:
1. The stumpees are... not notable for their superb reasoning (there's no nice way of saying it; sorry guys)
2. It's a

great

way for scum to divest accountability - same as dice-tag voting in the early game, but this is a

much

worse time to obfuscate your motives.

MOS seemed to switch to JD at a convenient time, though he gave reasons for it. I'm very interested to see who's the focus of his attention now; his last major post gave him a couple of avenues to take, notably Adel and The Fonz. MOS, what do you think of an Adel-Fonz scumpair? Also, do you really think it's plausible that I was scum with DGB, when I got her so close to stumping?

mith seems, to me, to be flip-flopping on his own view of the status of stumps. I'll need to reread, though; that may just be confusion. However, I want to analyse him in particular detail.

desisted has disappeared, Fonz has been scummy intermittantly throughout the game - in his prior incarnations as well as his present self...

FOS: Adel, d3sisted, MoS, Fonz, mith, Thok

Actually, it's mostly Fonz and Adel - especially Adel after her last few posts - but is it just me, or does logic not seem to apply to this game? (Maybe we've learned something, and scum are wrong in typical games to NK off the scary players, as leaving them around affords them the opportunity to hide in plain sight.)

Every

instinct I've got has been shouting at me to vote Adel or Fonz, but they've been wrong so many times this game...
but the alternative, to go after the people who've

not

acted scummy, is probably worse

[Adele]

Oh, and to be clear:

I do absolutely think that if JDodge is innocent, he should stump in his next post, and if he doesn't that we should lynch him immediately. He has enough votes under the currently agreed system, and even under the other systems he has enough since Fonz is saying he should stump without actually officially voting/calling. I just felt it was worth pointing out the apparent inconsistency in Fonz thinking he should stump but not voting/calling because he already has enough, when he didn't technically have enough under Fonzy's own proposal.

I just barely read this last night, and I think I misunderstood it. The fact that you seemed to be going on and on about your proposal, the (as it seemed to me) sudden flip from saying that we needed more stumpee votes on JDodge to saying he should stump - mostly I think I was just knowcked off course by the huge and ornate argument between you and Fonz.

I've gotten the impression in your last couple posts that you're trying to ease into throwing suspicion my way, perhaps to see if any innocents will bite.

Half right; a couple of things you've said have tweaked me, and I'm in paranoid mode, trying to determine if there are any valid arguments against you which I've missed because you've played tight. So in a way, I'm floating these to see if

I'll

bite.

There are still questions sitting there for both you and Fonzy on this.

Sorry, missed them:

1. Did you think that these three particular players were of poor logical quality before they stumped? Or do you think there is necessarily a correlation between stumping and poor logic/quality?
2. Does it have anything to do with two of them stumping prematurely? If so, do you have an objection to scot having a vote?
3. If SP is replaced, as has been requested, would you have any objection to his replacement having a vote?

It's often impossible to tell if a person's making no sense because they're scum or because they're just illogical. On the other side, very good, logical players will be able to mask illogic in their arguments. Add to that that we've seen several players self-destruct under pressure; I think that's an indication that they're not strong players too. So I think being less good was a contributory factor in causing these people to end up as they did.
If SP gets replaced, I'd be very surprised if an eleventh-hour replacement with nearly fifty pages to catch up on and an inability to vote for real feels all that committed and makes valuable points. I dunno, one could easily get the town to agree that if any wagon that a confirmed mason's on reaches L-1, someone'll hammer (ie give masons a doublevote) - but the question is, why are you so obsessed with the issue? They're contributing to the discussion as they see fit, but they're

not

living for

reason

.

Frankly, I think your time would be better served trying to figure out who the scum is and convincing us than trying to talk us into this affirmative action-style deal. You've derailed yourself.

There's also something in this last page that I'm wondering if certain people pick up on.

on rereading, I found this:

Listening to the Fonz got me into trouble, that and forgetting to vet my previous posts for consistency...

If she's more concerned with

appearing

consistent than

being

right, that's a pretty damning admission to make...

edbypreview:

Also, on a... how is this situation different from the confirmed mason scenario? Obviously the town in such a case would not lynch the masons no matter how irresponsible they were. What difference does it make that it's a "wouldn't" rather than a "can't", as is the case here?

Seriously. Look at the list of stumpees and the list of the living. Masonhood is allocated randomly, so there'll likely as not be at least one better-than-average one. Stumphood is essentially a self-selecting group, though unwittingly so. We

need

their input, but we also need to consider: maybe their value is in guiding the discussion, rather than joining in the wagon.

[Adele]

I'm not ignoring other things for this, though, and I am pretty sure you are aware of that, Adele. I've been as vocal about who I think the scum are as anyone since I replaced into the game.

But recently, your views of who is or isn't scum has been drowned out by your proposal.

With six "living", we need four to "lynch" - that means we potentially need a

unanimous

vote among the innocent living players.

That

is the best argument you've yet presented for it.
You're right.
But, at the same time, the stumps are stumps for a reason, so I think the stumps shouldn't have a vote each, but 1-2 among the group.

Either way, I'm against extensive ongoing discussion of the matter. You may not feel like focus on this issue is distracting you; I can tell you right now it's distracted and confused the Hell out of

me

, and wouldn't be surprised if it's the same for others (especially with the follow-up questions you order us to answer in our very next post).
Rulemongering and metatactics just muddy the waters; in my opinion, that's what put the brakes on SMSM, and while I think this game has momentum, I'm worried it'll get us into a tailspin with major differences of opinion over whether someone's due to stump or not - and I hope we can agree that a premature stump or a lynch on a townie who insisted he wasn't due would be

seriously unfortunate

. That's ultimately what I'm most worried about - the split remaining and scumhunting being the victim.

If we don't have a consensus within a page or two, I'd be inclined to drop the matter, as the town clearly doesn't support your plans, and you're wasting your and everyone's time. That said, I'm leaning more towards your side of things than ever before (as you've now made an argument that makes sense to me).

[Adele]

Not because I voted for her; because I worked really hard trying to get her to stump, and nearly succeeded. In the context of him associating me with DGB because of

her

behaviour (particularly her support of me), I thought it was a fair point to raise.

Frankly, from the minute DGB arrived saying I

had

to be scum because the only way someone could hate someone as much as I hated Quag was if it was distancing/bussing, I've suspected the time would come when someone would employ the same reasoning against me in relation to her. The irony of MoS saying the

opposite

is somewhat amusing.

[Adele]

I am arguing this because it is what I truly believe in.

mith, I thought you said "tbh" is a tell (albeit a minor one)? But saying you truly believe what you're saying isn't one?

[Adele]

"Clearly doesn't support" my plans? Er... read the last paragraph of my last post again, please.

I did. I don't want to go round in circles, but my view is that if you don't get a lot of support quite quick - as I did for the original stump plan - then that indicates something. The fact that you had to push your plan, without others who agreed with you fighting on its behalf too, suggests something to me about how town as a whole feels about it. Hopefully it's moot now in any case.

This issue is not only not-distracting, this issue is something that I consider very important in catching some scum (you). How people react to things like this is great information.

In saying that, you are assuming there's no room for an simple difference of opinion.

In the interest of reaching consensus:

MoS's compromise proposal: Stump-votes will count for half a vote. When someone reaches at least 4.5 votes out of a possible 8, they will stump or we will lynch them.

Can everyone get behind that?

Yeah, ok.

[Adele]

Waitaminute...

Also, do you really think it's plausible that I was scum with DGB, when I got her so close to stumping?

This reminds me of an argument mith called scummy earlier, and is indeed stronger than the one I made (my argument was basically along the lines of 'You can't hold my behaviour toward JD as evidence of a connection,' this is an out-and-out 'we're not connected because I voted for her.')

Are you saying

you

think it's plausible that you and I are scum together? You

know

DGB's support of me isn't evidence of a scummy connection between us, so what's your point?

[Adele]

Sorry for the triplepost:

it took quite a while for me to get an opinion out of you

That's not even true. I make your first suggestion of it being on Sunday, and I was absent from the site over the weekend, and from the thread for Monday too, but for a placeholder "sorry to keep you waiting" post. I then dealt with matters other than your plan for a

whole two posts

before answering your question. Yes, I'm sorry, I didn't think it was

top

priority while a stump was going on. But to call that "quite a while" and imply to really had to drag it out of me was either disingenuous or (more likely) a result of the posting-fever over the last few days causing you to misjudge the timing of the last half-week as being over a longer time period.

[Adele]

Maybe Glork was only up for replacing SP.

[Adele]

Can somebody please explain the logic behind putting more power into the hands of the living? A repost or a quick summary will do.

On one level, I think people aren't excited at the prospect of disefnranchising themselves, even if it means disenfranchising the scum. I don't want to just be a meatpuppet even for players I have the utmost respect for. Which isn't the case here: there's a strong feeling that the stumps, as a rule, are less logical and make worse decisions than living players - as evidenced by them either stumping unnecessarily or garnering the suspicion of most of the town (for example, I think

every

living player and at least on treestump favoured JDodge stumping; now we're supposed to trust his judgement?)

I'm really starting to suspect those for giving stumps votes are doing so only because they believe the stumps can be manipulated into agreeing with their agenda.

Can somebody please explain the logic behind putting more power into the hands of the living? A repost or a quick summary will do.

On one level, I think people aren't excited at the prospect of disefnranchising themselves, even if it means disenfranchising the scum. I don't want to just be a meatpuppet even for players I have the utmost respect for. Which isn't the case here.

There's a strong feeling that the stumps, as a rule, are less logical and make worse decisions than living players - as evidenced by them either stumping unnecessarily or garnering the suspicion of most of the town (for example, I think

every

living player and at least on treestump favoured JDodge stumping; now we're supposed to trust his judgement?)

I'm really starting to suspect those for giving stumps votes are doing so only because they believe the stumps can be manipulated into agreeing with their agenda.

mith said that it was an even split on the matter, but I disagree.
For: mith
half-and-half: MoS ("I think you're both right, unfortunately. The Fonz's scenario is very real, but I still think confirmed innocents should have a real say in things. Maybe the stumps should only be worth half a vote towards stumping?"), Adel (didn't answer for a while, then "I've decided that I'll peg my vote to the voice of the stumps. When a majority of them agree on who is the most likely scum, I'll either vote for that person or call for him to stump." ie. one vote shared among the stumps)
against: Fonz, Adele

So, apart from the person who suggested it, everyone seems pretty lacklustre or outright against it. So, we've compromised; given the stumps

some

voting power. If mith's okay with keeping score then I prefer the current consensus to either extreme.

This was just a quick summary; several arguments

have

been raised against it, and it's not a clear cut matter.

In fact, mith said that it was an even split on the matter, but I disagree.
For:

mith

half-and-half:

MoS

("I think you're both right, unfortunately. The Fonz's scenario is very real, but I still think confirmed innocents should have a real say in things. Maybe the stumps should only be worth half a vote towards stumping?"),

Adel

(didn't answer for a while, then "I've decided that I'll peg my vote to the voice of the stumps. When a majority of them agree on who is the most likely scum, I'll either vote for that person or call for him to stump." ie. one vote shared among the stumps)
against:

Fonz

,

Adele

So, apart from the person who suggested it, everyone seems pretty lacklustre or outright against it. So, we've compromised; given the stumps

some

voting power. If mith's okay with keeping score then I prefer that to either extreme.

As for this,

In fact, the proposed .5 to stumps and 1 to living really ruffles my feathers when I think about it more.

4 stumps @ .5 each, + 4 protown at 1 each gives 6 protown votes, against 2 scumvotes
4 stums @ 1 each + 4 protown @ .5 each gives 6 protown votes, against 1 scumvote

We've had enough trouble with people stumping unnecessarily without giving people a motivation to do so. It's not long since Adel considered falling on her sword (or pretended to consider it, if she's scum) to raise the validity of her argument; making being a stump too inviting is

dangerous

, when someone who's "like, really really sure" that someone's scum might rationalise their loss to town as worthwhile if it ensures a scum lynch.

The second pair I have a mind for is MoS/Adele. Again, MoS fits the profile of being really overenthusiastic in going after Quag without substantial enough evidence. MoS and Adele also did an awful lot of asskissing towards mith (Adele with more quantity, but MoS where I felt it counted most -- as indicated above). Furthermore, Adele's attitude towards Quag was the incredulous "wtf, what are you doing?" bit that made me cringe. I wouldn't exactly say that she pleaded with Quag to look at his role PM, but my gut tells me there was something there. I have to admit, I have less concrete, specific evidence against this pairing, but I do have some pretty strong gut-feelings.

IIRC, this was a flavour-of-the-month theory around the time you've apparently got up to when you posted this. I'll post a rebuttal if you'd like, but I think it was all dealt with at the time - such as my "buddying up" with mith (you'll get a chuckle out of that).
Let me know once you've finished reading up.

Adele's attitude towards Quag was the incredulous "wtf, what are you doing?" bit that made me cringe.

Incredulous is my usual response to insanity.

Nothing

is more baffling to me than a town saying very clearly to someone "If you don't do this

you will die

" and that person still refusing to do it. But if there's a one-in-a-hundred chance of redeeming these people, I wanna give it a go (I'm an Evangelical Nerd).

[Adele]

Adel then said: "The stumps are the only ones I trust at this point, so yeah, they should get a vote. Pegging my vote to thier voice actually gives some meat to your idea."

That looks like a pretty solid "yes" to me.

She's offering to give the stumps one vote

between them

- how is that not more like MoS' half-and-half than anything else?

Suspicions:
Adel
Fonz
d3sisted
MoS
mith
Adele

Fonz was ahead of Adel, but he's made a lot of sense lately. d3sisted's unpeggable, but he was neither scummy nor townie when around - as I recall, but it's been a while. You're coming off as sincere, wrong, and fanatical to me right now, which is why you're where you are - but I'm on the edge of my seat thinking you might just be immune. Adel's behaviour in the last few days has been shocking, and MoS has been fairly consistently making good sense but I feel like he's laying low again - but that might be the result of the crazy posting over the last few days.

How about you present your list now, mith? And stop with the crazy hating just because I have a different opinion to you

which most people share to a greater or lesser extent

. I can't help thinking that whoever answered Glork's question would have provoked your ire.

[Adele]

mith, I'm having trouble figuring out where this intense suspicion of me has come from. At one point you said it was in part because I'd avoided the question - then you agreed that I'd not. Then it seems to be hung on your dislike of my reaction to your idea - but Fonz, who took the same attitude as I, is your most-trusted, so you clearly don't consider this attitude

intrinsically

damning. Perhaps it's because I explained myself fully, and thus stood out prominently to you as an opponent?

The next thing I know, you're "really liking your pseudovote" without explaining why.

And then

Pretty solid on Adele as scum - no, Adele, not because you have a different opinion to me; because

I don't believe you really do have a different opinion

Wow. That's useful and completely impossible to refute. Never mind the multitude of reasons explaning why I believe what I believe. Never mind the logical arguments I provide for it. If you feel intuitively that I'm lying, then there's nothing I can do.

I can't think of anyone I've wavered over as much as you. The moment I become convinced that you're scum, I see clearly that you can't

possibly

be anything but town - and vice versa. As you're one person and we've two scum, I'm very tempted just to ignore you and look for scum among the other four; put you to one side and come back to you later. Like sprouts.

If you want to present your case on me so I can defend point-by-point, I'm up for that.

In your most recent post, you seem to think I've been inconsistent and have supported VotesForStumps but listed myself against. In fact, I acquiesced to a compromise, and my views have changed very little. I have, to date, seen

one

good argument for giving stumps votepower, and

several

against. It's a more complex issue than it first appeared to me, and I for one am willing to admit that, but I am, and have always been, against giving stumps votepower - but willing to compromise in the face of a consensus.

still posting, and reading, and still stumped as to what I can add to the conversation.

That's the second post (i believe) from Adel following mith's request (again) that she clarifies where she stands on giving stumps the vote. She can't think of

anything

to contribute? How about answering the question?
How about listing who she thinks is scum?
How about commenting whether she thinks agreement with mith's plan correlates positively, negatively or not at all with scummyness?

Adel

: if you had to pick 2 scum right now, who would they be?

pseud: Adel

.
That kind of coaxing is the sort of thing I'd be obliged to post in a Road to Rome game as IC, not such an experienced player as Adel. She's been begging off saying she's no longer capable of playing at this level. Well, she may be new-ish, but she's made nearly as many ingame posts on this site as mith, Iammars, The Fonz and I (it's actually kinda creepy; the five of us are all within about 15% of each other). I think this is simple lurking; begging off contributing as much as possible to avoid controversy and garnering too much attention; trying to fly under the radar through to endgame.

[Adele]

yeah. That's just what this game needs.
another replacement.

FOS: MoS

[Adele]

I railed at DGB for the same reason earlier this game. But threatening to leave the game doesn't help anyone, and frankly I think it correlates with being scum. Stuff rolls off your back better when you're town, I think.

If you don't like Glork's behaviour, I suggest you separate that

entirely

from the truth or lack thereof of the accusations he makes. Give examples of what offended you, and why, and be all moral-high-ground-y.

And forgive me for being so patronising.

Nevertheless, the small FOS stands. You've gone up a notch in my suspicions in the last couple days.

[Adele]

mith
I'm going to have to read some others of your games. You seem to approach the game from your gut, an approach which I find hugely unreadable (by the way, the "I waver a lot" was to explain why you vary a lot in my suspicion lists - my internal ones at least - and why, though I am not consistently finding you protown, I'm putting you to one side and scumhunting among other players. It was an explanation of my conduct, past and future - not encouragement for yiou to change your mind).
In turn, I think you're misreading me (or lying, obv). I like logic - in theory, or as balast, if you know what I mean. In practice, I probably have a tendency to listen to my intuition on an idea and then think through all the reasons I can find as to why my intuition is naturally right. My immediate response to your plan was serious misgivings, and there's a possibility that that's just because I don't want to be a meatpuppet, to be disenfranchised - because I want to be an active part of the win, not just to get out of the way. However, when I look at the downsides (playing devil's advocate, except not) I can see a

lot

.
That said, I know that I'm a good ideas-generator and not quite so good an ideas-judger (you'll find a lot of games where early on I say "I have this idea for a tactic. Might help the town. Might be a huge exploit for the scum in there though; anyone see any?" - take this game, where it never

occurred

to me that my plan for pro-town players stumping instead of lynching would lead to the premature stumps, because I personally am stubborn and would always cling to life as long as possible. If someone had objected on that basis, I'd've rejected it out of hand as preposterous). So I'm not some tactical genius, and I acknowledge that -

that's

why, though I'm against your plan, I am willing to go along with it if there is a consensus among the living players.

Which brings us back to the question, is there a consensus? I note Adel has again opted not to give a clear, unambiguous answer. (hint: "yes, I agree with mith that the stumps should have a vote equal to living players" would do. As would "I'm on the fence; they should have a say, but not as full as the living")

I'd guess that MoS is the most likely scum, followed by Adele.

...and I've given my vote to the stumps in advance of mith's request for clarification.

I think Glork will save this game for the town-- I'm certainly not in a posistion to save it.

I've been keeping my head down to avoid the mislynch of myself. With Adele and MoS gunning for me I feel that the less I say the better.

(corrected)
...

seriously

?
1. You don't actually

say

whether you believe the stumps whould have a vote each or not.
2. You completely divest yourself of responsibility to contribute, to scumhunt, to play the game, to vote according to your beliefs, or to defend yourself.

Newsflash, Adel: I'm not going to forget you exist or that I suspect you just because you don't post. I'm not going to back off just because you accuse me of "gunning for you". I'm not going to feel sorry for you because you profess to feel intimidated.
Those things are

not going to happen

.
A week ago, I raised a bunch of points against you, which you didn't answer. Since then, you've said hardly anything, claiming to have nothing to contribute and trusting in the oracle of Glork. A week ago, you proposed to fall on your sword to get people to trust you that Fonz was bad. Now he's not even on your suspects list - and you don't say why.
I suspect... no, scratch that. I'm now at the point where I feel pretty sure: you are scum. With Fonz or MoS or mith or d3sisted, I dunno. But you're playing the newbie card like someone a week into their first game. I just don't think it's credible that you're actually feeling the way you claim to be - I think you're nervous, sure, that we'll peg you, but not this floundering confusion or low self-esteem you profess - and that makes you a liar.

Consequently, I do not expect my vote to change anytime soon.

Iammars, good to see you! No, I don't think we've played together - I think I replaced into Best of the Internet after you died (btw, that's the game where the bad blood between DGB and I really got started - although I have nothing against her as a person and she likely feels the same, her style, her posts, her outlook

really

grate on me. Example: I'm a firm proponent of LAL. In best of the internet, she lied as town. Several times. So when she said I'll likely end up like her, I didn't appreciate that in the spirit that, to be fair, there's every chance it was intended. We mostly avoid each other nowadays). So, no I don't think we've played together, onsite or in scumchat (which I've done about twice). I think I made your avvy though.
Yeah, long posts are happening a lot here (including here). Lots going on all at once - no-one could call this game dull. Makes it tough to reread, though.

I disagree that giving one's vote away is necessarily a pro-town action, though.

Depending on the person, it might not be for the good of the game but as a personal shield. Especially in this scenario, a scum might feel that the loss they get from not having the control is small compared to the gain they get of not being prominent it peoples' minds. It's divestment of accountability; dice-tag voting 2.0 . And isn't a lack of accountability one of the scum's fondest hopes?

[Adele]

well, that's interesting. Adel fails to scare me off, and suddenly she's sure I'm scum (even though scumhunting's apparently not her talent)

mith, Adel's my number one. Fonz is currently my number two. MoS is currently my number three. Iammars currently number four. You, I exclude from the listing not because you're number five but because I don't know what to do with you.

However, Quagmire only had 5 votes plus 1 stump request (your own).

Since he'd opted out of the stump plan, it would have been pointless. Quagmire had said numerous times that he had absolutely no intention of stumping, ever, no matter what. I don't recall if I knew at the time that he was short of a consensus for a stump, but since one was in any case out of the question in his case (and we'd given him

every

chance, something I've been criticised for), I think I'd do the same again.

FOS: Adel, d3sisted, MoS, Fonz, mith, Thok

nice shotgun approach to fit MoS in there

?
Yeah, and the mod, too. I fit everyone in there. It was a joke, a comment that I was

somewhat confused

. But sarcastic comments allow you to imply you find it scummy without justifying it.

Every instinct I've got has been shouting at me to vote Adel or Fonz, but they've been wrong so many times this game...
but the alternative, to go after the people who've not acted scummy, is probably worse

are smilies a scumtell against Adele? I found this sentence to be rather elegant. She excuses the bad wagons she been on before and lays out a false choice (vote for Adel ot the Fonz or someone not scummy) quite nicely.

re. smilies: not to my knowledge. I use them when joking, when I think I'm unclear, or when a post's gotten to the length where it occurs to me I ought to break it up visually.
re. the "false dilemma", I was presenting the choice

I

was facing. Yes, I found you and Fonz scummy and everyone else comparatively not so. So, not a false dilemma for me; possibly, from their povs, an inaccurate statement of other peoples' choice. Which is why if it'd been an argument I was presenting for why people should vote you, it might have been scummy. As it was, it wasn't.

Glork, is there anything you'd like to ask me, to explain or justify?

Clearly a lot of people suspect me right now (or are pretending to, obviously, but that's presumably not the case for Glork). I'm fully prepared to spend some time defending myself, but I do ask that people take a closer look at Adel; the contradictions, the bad arguments (and lack of real "arguments" at all, the way she tried to beg off contributing and when really pressured, came out against the person pressuring her hardest (because wanting people to post substantively is a well known scumtell, rite?)

I'm assuming that people have some interest in what I've got to say, and want me to defend myself - that they haven't decided that they intend to kill me regardless of what happens next.

Finally: Iammars, have you read up? Do you have an opinion on anything (especially what appears to be two camps: people seem [I've not doublechecked this; there may be exceptions] either to think Adel's scummy or Adele's scummy)?

[Adele]

there was nothing sarcastic about my comment. Later you (or MoS) would be able to point to that FoS as evidence of your suspicion of each other.

Evi...?
I fos'd the

mod

! Hardly something I can point to later to show how deeply and genuinely I suspect anyone on the list.
I trust MoS more than the average (living); when I do find something he says "off" in any way, I say so. I put everyone in the list; did you only mention MoS to highlight to everyone that you suspect MoS and I are co-scum?
Because implying it is more insidious than saying it outright. Say it outright "I think Adele made that list to put MoS in it so she can later claim she suspected him because I think she's co-scum with him", and people can see clearly that it's not an argument for MoS and I being co-scum at all; the same principle applies to me in pairing with anyone in that list.

[Adele]

"Two camps": most people seem, at the moment, to want either me or Adel dead next. I'm not saying that it's impossible for both or neither of us to be scum, merely that we are (in my opinion) the main wagons going on.

s for Fonz - and I'm really sorry I don't have a huge amount of time here, I've got an appointment - but basically the reasons ongoing intermittant scumminess through the three incarnations, not least DGB. Also, the same reasons you suspected him not long ago; I never bought that he was cleared because he highlighted his righteous anger at someone who turned out town. I'm in a totally different wifom place to you on that - I don't know if it makes him

more

scummy - but it certainly doesn't clear him, wheras you have mostly treated him as confirmed ever since.

[Adele]

Glork, is there anything you'd like to ask me, to explain or justify?

Not really. I mostly just want you to die. Your continued attempts to deflect to the other flavor of the day (Adel) have been noted, though.

My suspicion of Adel hasn't come out of nowhere in a desperate attempt to get anyone but me lynched - it came about earlier today when she said several very scummy things in a row. Her pseudovote on me is another example of that - she doesn't say which argument convinced her, but just passes the buck to Glork.

How many people currently would like me to stump? How many want me to make account for something?

Glork: if I do end up having to stump, and become a confirmed innocent, will that affect your opinion of Adel?
Actually, I just realised I'm not sure: what

is

your opinion of Adel?

[Adele]

I currently feel like a spectator rather than a participant in this game (since the majority of actives seem to have made up their mind one way or another and seem immoveable). Rest assured, though, that I'm on the edge of my seat. If I think there's anything I can usefully contribute to, or of course if anyone asks me any questions, I'm ready to jump.

Oh, also: I agree with The Fonz. I still think he's scum, probably bussing his partner because he thinks it will cement him in peoples' (particularly mith and Glork's) minds as obvtown and he can be sure that I, MoS, maybe even Iammars, are in the list ahead of him and he's set. But I agree with his reasons why Adel's so objectively and subjectively scummy-looking.

[Adele]

And are we supposed to believe that if Glork and scot were both on you and JDodge on a third party you'd've suggested this?

Seriously, you're

saying

you want a particular voting setup because you think it favours you. You say that in the first paragraph. Then you pick and choose a system that the votecount appears to disfavour me the most. That's not disingenuous - it's outright, open jerrymandering. Who do you think you are, a Bush?

Personally, I trust

my

analysis more than anyone else's, even including Glork (whose reputation as "top-notch" has so far passed me by). I'd be disappointed by anyone who felt otherwise - why do they play, if not to play?

[Adele]

And are we supposed to believe that if Glork and scot were both on you and JDodge on a third party you'd've suggested this?

Seriously, you're

saying

you want a particular voting setup because you think it favours you. You say that in the first paragraph. Then you pick and choose a system that the votecount appears to disfavour me the most. That's not disingenuous - it's outright, open jerrymandering. Who do you think you are, a Bush?

how do you propose the town should get four to agree on a target without the decision being manipulated by scum until a mislynch occurs? The number are on their side, so we have to hope that we can use the setup-up to make it work for the town.

There are several arrangements which can counteract that measure - including the "Current Compromise" as I think it's generally being referred to.

You

then lay out a completely new and somewhat arbitrary plan clearly

designed

to disadvantage me. You actually state in the post:

I expect MoS's vote to fall on me, which pretty much mean's that my fate is in Iammars hands. So if Adele is going to be forced to stump that means convincing The Fonz to change votes. I don't think that I can do that.

You

say

that it's about self-protection, not about the right play.

Iammars, how is it the right thing to do, to make a list of all the people who want a given person dead and say "let's ignore votes by people other than them"? Why is Adel's (who is female, btw) opinion of who out of the stumps has a respectable decision that matters? And how can you trust someone who just so happens to pick the one who's voting for her?

Come on, guys. She's practically a jester at this point. How can you not see it?

[Adele]

a roundabout ignore-the-votes-against-me Crap Logic™ attempt to push the outcome toward Adele.

Thank you.

[Adele]

Adel: it might be that my concentration's not at its best today, but... what?

Adel, what was the thought process involved in going from "The Fonz is scum" to "Adele and MoS are scum"?

d3sisted and the fonz were on the top of my list along with scotmany and jdodge back when those two were able to still vote, and every thing seemed pretty clear to me that that group of four held two scum. Then came the x-mas break period when I made some bumbling mistakes, lost my place, and MoS really tried to push for my lynch without voting for me or really trying to stand out as my wagon's leader.

OK. you think Mos was trying to build your wagon without drawing attention to himself. I get that. I'd have to check it out to see if the facts bear that accusation out, but it could very easily be a mild scumtell.

At about the same time the wagon on Adele began to build in a way that fits my profile for an accurate wagon

What profile is that?

I don't see any real link between the two players, or lack of a link.

You see neither a link nor a lack therof? Isn't that a logical impossibility? Please clarify.

Adele made a post the post I quoted from extensively where she talked about how this game is unusual for the number of expereinced players who are left late in the game. I think our scum group consists of two players who are are experienced and adept.

Well, it'd have to since that's pretty much what we're left with, wouldn't it? I think I'm missing your point here, but aren't all living players pretty experienced and adept?

Mith isn't in the group because I have nothing on him, but Adele and MoS both seem just scummy enough to me that I think I have a shot at having a clue.

You exclude mith for no real reason, just saying you've not seen anything he's done as actionable. But you don't propose a whole lot for why MoS and (especially) I are actionable.

I just don't see where all this has come from. It seems like a convenience accusation to me; you talk vaguely of profiles and theories, and very little of why you

actually think

that MoS and I are scum. It occurs to me that there may be a reason you find it tough.

Just to clarify, has anything Fonz did made you downscale his scumminess, or do you just think MoS and I are better stumps for (what I think are - and I apologise if I've misunderstood) fundamentally theoretical metagame reasons?

[Adele]

I must apologise for my absence these last several days. My life took an unexpected turn and I lost my usual source of internet access.

Of course, my absence appears to have been relatively harmless to this game.

re MoS: is he going to produce ten such essays? Are we to wait for them all before progressing? This may be a stalling tactic disguised as overhelpfulness. Or it may be overhelpfulness with the unfortunate result of stalling the game. But is it helpful, especially considering a fair proportion of players consider MoS likely scum so the eventual results will wind up being useful, really, only to MoS?

[Adele]

Why?

I've had a change of heart.
I would prefer to read all of your pairings analysis before another player is forced to stump. I don't mind waiting the 11 or so weeks it might take for you to produce them. Taking a few weeks to develop some really deep analysis sounds good to me. So I'll draw some pictures and try to quantify some evidence in the meantime.

1. He said, when the issue was raised, not to wait.
2. How does it tie him to me? Oh, wait, it doesn't? You just bundle him and I together because you want to remind everyone yet again that of the three of us, you're the only innocent?
3. If a person asks a question, and rather than answering it straight, you just go off sarcastically, that speaks to the quality of the point you're making. You show in the quote why MoS' essays might slow us down (no-one's disagreed with that, have they? I thought there was a consensus on that). You don't show that his intent was to stall - nor do you show how stalling would benefit him as scum.

Yet again your only interest is to attack another potential target - it's attack as self-defence, and while I understand it, I don't think it's a pro-town contribution; and I don't think you do either.

[Adele]

Wait, this:

Why?

I've had a change of heart.
I would prefer to read all of your pairings analysis before another player is forced to stump. I don't mind waiting the 11 or so weeks it might take for you to produce them. Taking a few weeks to develop some really deep analysis sounds good to me. So I'll draw some pictures and try to quantify some evidence in the meantime.

wasn't

sarcasm? You want the game to go on another three months? You think it'll be useful and productive to the game to hang out waiting for one players' views?

If so, then I disagree. Analysis is good - but not to the point where even trying to read the analysis post sends you into a coma, in a game that's otherwise been one of the more interesting I've ever played. I think that stalling out the game as you suggest and coming back in three months will simply equal half or more of the players having forgotten the subtleties of the salient points and being confused as all get out.

[Adele]

Actaully I think any time someone looks at something both ways and forces it to be scummy either way means that player is biased.

I mean logically if doing X is scummy, then doing the opposite of X should be town.

Please allow me to explain. I thought that the post in question was saying something absurd. Basically, I thought Adel was straw-manning MoS by framing an unfair and absurd representation of his POV in sarcasm.

Then she said she meant it, which brings me back to "that's absurd".

OK, imagine two guys, Pete and Joe.

It's possible that extraterrestrials exist

Oh, yeah, an alien landed in my back garden yesterday! In fact, the Queen Mother is an alien, sent here to infiltrate high-level politicians through ceremonial meetings.

[quote=""me""]There's no need to be sarcastic about it, and that doesn't undermine Joe's point[/quote]

What do you mean, sarcastic? She is.

[quote=""me""]...um... ok. [walks away from Pete][/quote]

To be fair, I'd like to apologise to Adel for the example, which is a bit of an exaggeration - it was the first example I thought of, and I hope you can see why a reading of it as sarcastic shows Pete to be transparantly strrawmanning Joe while a reading of it as sincere impacts Pete's credibility somewhat.

[Adele]

mith's... as near pure as I've ever seen. And, as paranoid as that makes me, I just don't believe the reverse-wifom. I have to take the stance that the scummier you seem, the higher the odds you're scum, and the townier you seem the likelier you are to be town. I can see mith as scum, certainly - I can see anyone as scum by this point - but it's just not the odds to play.

I can believe that mith's coaching Adel, then, Fonz, but I don't see that as a scumtell. It's about trying to get players to level up rather than level the game down or give the game to the team with more experience. And she was sounding off like she was a newbie (though she's not) and I can see why a townie (especially a long-termer like mith) would respond to that.

I'm prepared at this point to write mith off.

Anything to have something new to say here.

Current scumlist:
Adel
Fonz
MoS
Iammars

mith, where are you on Fonz? If he's scum with Adel or MoS (or me) and we killed according to your triple, scum would win (or I fail at maths) with Fonz the last scum standing after one lynch on scum and two stumps on towns.

[Adele]

Adele, the whole point of the "I think these the two scum are among you three" thing is that I think Iammars and The Fonz are innocent. I very much dislike that last sentence - it's equivalent to saying "If X is scum and we don't lynch X, X will win!". Desperation? Maybe.

It's the reason I can't get in bed with you, mith, even though I think you're innocent; I suspect Fonz, so any plan that assumes his innocent (and bets the game on it) is not one that I particularly support.

[Adele]

Could the stumps please try to do whatever rereading they need to do this weekend or something?

It's becoming increasingly difficult to stay interested in this game when I feel like I'm just waiting around for people to post.

QFT

[Adele]

Adel, what was the results of your analysis on d3sisted/Iammars after JDodge and scotmany came up protown? You justified some of your votes on them earlier by saying that their death would help you determine d3sisted's alignment. I'd like to know what became of that.

According to the theory I had at the time, d3sisted should be scum. I lost interest in the idea after Iammars started posting and you attacked me for the mistake I made around Christmas time.

"lost interest"? Since when is the correct course dependent on faddishness - or are you saying here your approach since then has been omgus? I don't follow your explanation of why you now reject your earlier reasoning as a town approach - though it fits your survivor approach to this game pretty well which, as I think I've said before, I consider a major scumtell.

[Adele]

Here.

Thanks, that really helps the process we're going through at the moment. Game-changing arguments.

[Adele]

Oh Super. A deadline's all we need right now. Mith's plan seems fine to me; the only thing worse than a deadline lynch on a townie is a no-lynch.

Actually, this adele thing is rather concerning.

I'm not sure what "thing" you're referring to here.

Oh yeah, Unvote:, Sudo-stump Vote: mith

With around a week to decide who should next die (by mith's plan), does it really seem like the best thing you have to contribute is a pseudovote on someone no-one else is voting for, and one of the most trusted players in the game to boot?

And

to not produce an argument in favour of the course of action you clearly want us to go for.

At the moment, it seems to me like it's between Adel and I. If you have something up your sleeve to throw someone else into the pot, sooner'd be better than later. If not, then we could really do with your help in the central - and increasingly urgent - debate we're dealing with here.

Korlash, who do you think Mith is scum with, if he isn't scum with Adel? Who do you think Adel is scum with, if she isn't scum with Mith?

I might've misunderstood this post. It reads a lot to me like "if either is scum then they both are" (which, considering you're a favourite to be Adels' scumbuddy, is a view you'd like people to believe as it clears either you or her). What precepitated this line of questioning?

[Adele]

Oh Super. A deadline's all we need right now. Mith's plan seems fine to me; the only thing worse than a deadline lynch on a townie is a no-lynch.

I wrote that. Went away. Thought about it. Got confused. Doesn't make any sense.

No-lynch

is

preferable to a lynch on a townie; townielynch is game over while no-lynch would put us in lylo. In any case, the order of good to bad is:
Lynching scum > making a townie stump > no lynch > lynching town

when it comes down to it the only way I can make sense of this game is to look for who has given just the right amount of push to stump wagons. I am used to playing with players who are much more transparent, so I'm out of my comfort zone for analyzing bahavior.

Yes, we know, you're finding this really tough so you aren't culpable for your choices.

All that I am left with is the theory that the scum have pushed wagons, but not hard enough to be strongly associated with them.
MoS's attack on me seemed to be just the right amount of push. If he had continued to push my wagon I would've concluded that he was town, but he didn't. He did lay out a good enough case against me that had other players rapidly adopted it I would've been lynched, and probably without his vote on my wagon.

I had a theory, and then I moved on to one that fits my understanding of the game better.

Then it makes sense to deprioritise your earlier theory, but not to just forget it and act like it never happened. In any case, "so-and-so's attack on me is dead scummy and that's why I'm voting for them" still does stink of omgus.

[Adele]

Glork and Fonz are iffy. In the parallel Korlash is wrong univese, they could be scum... together!

somewhat

unlikely, since Glork mod-confirmed since he stumped (or rather, his predecessor did)

OHHHH... But I would need more of a readup on them to even consider them. Adel is... ehh shes always scum to me. So Mith's partner is one of them. Happy hunting tomorrow! If there is a tomorrow... With our luck you will force MoS to stump next...

So, mith's co-scum, by your reckoning, is probably me (mentioned earlier in the post as a more-probably-credulous-fool-of-a-townie), Adel or The Fonz... and you hope that the next player to die will be MoS?

...I'm confused.

[Adele]

With our luck you will force MoS to stump next...

Apologies, I misread "our luck" as "any luck".

Korlash hasn't given any reasoning for why he thinks I'm scum, so not much to reply to there.

...

Sticking with Adele. Not much new I can point to at the moment, her posts just continue to feel off.

It's a bit ironic - your stance on me, namely that for the most part I "feel off" - is very similar to Korlash's stance on you:

Like my vote on mith. Can't think of anything more to say right now but I jsut have this bad feeling about the way his posts strike me.

He's practically plagerised you. Not that this is a particularly useful observation - I think both of you are barking up the wrong tree, but acknowledge that scumdars can be a useful tool and that in a situation like this, you need to follow the best course in front of you.

Korlash: since it's looking very unlikely that mith is going to be the pick of the day, might I suggest that your pseudovote could be better used elsewhere? Unfortunately, I'm biased - I believe that Adel is scum and is the best candidate for murder here, so my suggestion that you vote for the whichever of the two vote leaders you trust less would be made safe in the knowledge you'd prefer her to me - but so many people here are

convinced

mith is town and aren't going to follow you no matter what, I do think you should move to someone else, whether that be Fonz, Adel or Mars.

[Adele]

Adele, key word: "new". I've discussed quite a few things that have rubbed me the wrong way about your play. Those haven't magically gone away. Unfortunately, you haven't done anything I've found particularly scummy recently. If you wouldn't mind, it would make things a lot easier...

(Actually, that statement itself fits the bill nicely. Self-preservation bias or no, I know you can tell the difference between my vote on you and what Korlash is doing.)

There is

a

difference; I was noting the similarity, not claiming identicality. But as I recall, the first thing that had you on me was your gut, and the substantive reasoning came after... if you hadn't already been looking at me through those eyes, would you have found those other things scummy? Could it have been confirmation bias? Well, obviously you think not, I think so.

In either case, I get that I'm unlikely to convert you.

Are people convinced Mith is town? I just don't see that as true. Korlash thinks he's scum, I think he's scum, The Fonz thinks he's scum, Adel thinks he's scum...who exactly is

convinced

Mith is town?

I was working off this:

I have the suspicion lists looking something like this right now:

mith: Adele>Adel>MoS>Iammars>Fonz>mith
Iammars: MoS>Adel>Adele>Fonz>mith>Iammars
Adele: Adel>Fonz>MoS>Iammars>mith>Adele
MoS: Adele>Adel>Iammars>Fonz>mith>MoS
Fonz: Adel>mith>Adele>MoS>Iammars>Fonz
Adel: Adele>MoS>Iammars>Fonz>mith>Adel

Glork: Adele>MoS?>?
JDodge: Fonz>?
scotmany12: Adele>?
Korlash: Adel>?

Group: Adele>Adel>MoS>>>Iammars>Fonz>mith

Stumps, please give us your input.

Mod, can we get a prod on JDodge? (He hasn't posted in nearly a month.)

Adding Glork to this, that's at least 6 who put him in the bottom two; in other words, who would only sooner lynch him than

themselves

. This list might just have changed somewhat in the interim - in which case I apologise. But it's only been just over a week, so that's what was in my mind - along with what Glork and I have been saying to Korlash.

edit: it appears Adel and MoS have jumped ship? So that might make my point defunct.

[Adele]

You recall incorrectly, Adele. I voted you initially in 1202, the main point of contention being your stance on the stump-voting. I also mentioned (both in the following discussions, and earlier in the game) some things about you that had been bothering me.

My mistake.

mith did make me a scummy judge.... I think that blows the coaching theory.

You really think it's proper for your out-of-game relationship with mith since the game started to impact the view we take of his behaviour towards you in-game?
That's just not cricket, Adel.

[Adele]

First off, I just don't think that sort of thing should be brought into the game. The game is Vegas, and vice-versa. Otherwise there's a motive to play silly-buggers in that kind of way and that's bad for the game and site as a whole. That's why I said it's "not cricket" not "your point is irrelevant".

Second, I don't think mith

has

been coaching you (at least, not as co-scum), as I believe him innocent.

Third, I consider this kind of actions to reflect badly on you. I understand it, but there's a code, and breaking it is, to my eyes, scummy.

And fourth, you've now been onsite for nine months. When the game started it was five. It's perfectly plausible that at one point in the game a player might have thought you needed some help - especially when you were saying this was all beyond your youthful abilities - and at another point that same player gave you some position of responsibility on the site.

So, no. I'm not insinuating that, because I believe that

mith

is better than that.

[Adele]

The vote was a little surprising (are we placing real votes now? Has anyone else done that?), and moved me to reread my post to see what it was that made you not want to reply with anything other than an attack.

Oh.

So, no. I'm not insinuating that, because I believe that

mith

is better than that.

Rereading that particular, it comes off much more nastily than it was meant.

I

am

... dissatisfied with your behaviour in this matter, but I don't want you to think I go about thinking "Oh, Adel... she doesn't know right from wrong, or doesn't care anyhow", because I don't.

I do, however, feel that you are

stretching

ethics in this particular matter, and that while idle recollections of appointments are one thing, seriously putting them forward as refutations of accusations is quite another. And that there's a meta issue here, too.

I'd like to apologise if you felt I was impugning your character. It's a curiosity of the site that I think you're

scum

- but at the same time that you're a good chap.

[Adele]

I am totally reassured that you are in fact scum thanks to your posts over the last few hours. thanks.

Right back atcha.

[Adele]

1451 for starters. It sets of my

bullshit detector

intuitive sense of "facts" that are questionable. As a spatially/kinetically orientated thinker (really!) it is very difficult for me to communicate this. Adele posts with a forward red

tweek

clock-wise, with blue creeping at the edge of the field of view.

Jeeze! I thought I'd offended you, so I was apologising. It's like the issues I had with DGB earlier in the day; no matter what role you think a player has, that person's deserving of your respect, and shouldn't be given the impression they don't have it. It was a courtesy post because I said something that came off really rude, and I wanted to clarify - especially since even if I didn't consider it a moral obligation to show you respect as a person, you personally would still have my respect.

And your lone face... is... not doing much... for... my view! Oh... pieced that one together nicely!

OK, but seriously, Korlash, why are you voting for someone who's clearly not gonna be the next victim? Since votes are reset after stumps (and lynches) the vote on mith, in the current circumstances, is meaningless.

[Adele]

I think the pairwise looks something like:

Adele (mith, Adel, Glork, scot)
Adel (Iammars, Adele, Fonz, MoS)

Adele (mith, MoS, Fonz, Adel, scot, Glork)
MoS (Iamamrs, Adele, JDodge, Korlash?)

Adel (Adele, MoS, Fonz, Korlash)
MoS (Iammars, Adel, Glork, scot, mith, JDodge)

Which leaves us in a mess if JDodge or Korlash goes Adel>Adele. I'll probably switch to MoS tomorrow if nothing changes.

Possibly the wrong time to bring it up, but what is this "pairwise" thing??

I don't think MoS is the right choice (I know I've been subtle about my distrust for Adel ). I'll try tomorrow to present reasons why people should unvote me and MoS and whoever else and vote Adel, as I really don't think MoS is a great pick for the next death (step up from mith, at least, though Korlash )

Cause... Mith is scum and to lynch him you will have to stump. ^^

What does that mean, Korlash? Are you saying here that you think MoS is town and are trying to force him to join your campaign against mith?

Anyone got a Korlash-to-English dictionary?

[Adele]

@Adele: are you ready to see me place a vote on MoS?

This raises a small alarm in the back of my head.

I still want her to answer it.

I still want her to answer it.

Jeeze, I've only been offsite 48 hours!

I don't really know what you mean. Do you imagine me lying awake at night frightened of what bold thing you'll do next? Yeah, vote him if you want - it won't make me any less suspicious of you.

Ideally, I think the last two votes (certainly the lynching vote) should be placed in the last 24 hours before deadline. It shouldn't go to deadline with 3 votes on him; one of the voters could be his scumbuddy and unvote at the last minute. (Is that what you're up to, Adel? Bad tactics, it'll bite you in the ass.)

How many votes are on him now? Obviously, he should be lynched rather than go no-lynch; equally obviously, even if he is rather cravenly trying to wriggle out of stumping, I would expect a townie of his vintage to try to get town to change its mind even now, just as I'd expect a scum of his vintage to try avoiding stumping to the bitter end.

Oh,

Unvote Adel

.

[Adele]

Wow. Fast night.

Seriously, though, are you guys kidding me? I'm your favourite victim after Adel said this:

@Adele: are you ready to see me place a vote on MoS?

Guys, I was wrong about MoS and, like Iammars, thought that lynching should be put off as much as possible. That doesn't make me scum, it makes me imperfect. I'm at least

trying

here, unlike some people.

Well, at least now we're out of stlo, and even if you do force me to stump there's still hope - pretty good hope, actually.

[Adele]

pseudovote: Adel

, then, and I ask for people to

think

about this woman.

And I also ask mith to make another of his thingies. Just so I know where I stand - because I'd really prefer not to fall.

[Adele]

pseudovote: Adel

, then, and I ask for people to

think

about this woman.

Doesn't putting it in bold like that make it an actual vote?

Gee, I don't actually

know

.

If it does, though, I'm okay with that.

[Adele]

Harsh, Adel.

Ironically, though, I now don't have the pseudovotes on me requiring a stump.

And I call all others to join me and Korlash and see the light!

(Of all the allies I could gain...)

[Adele]

Fine. I tried, at least - and we're kind of at the stage where we need to do that.

I didn't want this role. I wanted to be a Lumberjack! Leaping from tree to tree!

Now

can you all vote Adel?

pseudovote: Adel

Seriously, she's the bad guy.

[Adele]

If I'm scum, you've won already. Stop stalling.

[Adele]

Adel = 90% likely scum
Fonz = 8% likely scum
mith = 2% likely scum

and I think that's an accurate reflection of how most stumps are thinking.

[Adele]

Eh. Not really.


I'd give it like 50-40-10.

But the same positions, so it comes to the same.

[Adele]

MoS, replacements are always annoying as scum, because they usually hurt you. That is, unfortunately, just something we have to deal with on the internet. I don't think you can blame Thok for this, though. As I kept saying, the tree stumps were still players in the game, and had to be treated as such.

I disagree

entirely

with this. First, I saw stumps less as confirmed townies who happened not to be able to vote and more as dead people who happened to be able to speak (I think that was my view of it even before I was allocated a role). Second, more important - there was

nothing

we could do as scum to get rid of Glork. He couldn't be nightkilled even on those one-in-eternity occasions that we went to night.

Adele, a lot of your posts were excellent.

thank you.

And I still can't quite put a finger on what it was about them that made you feel scummy.

Bah. Well, as I'll explain below, I think this setup was actually very much balanced against the scum, so there may have been a tinge of desperation.

Two questions, though - well, first, like Iammars asked, why him? I don't think it mattered much, since you were clearly going down, but I was shocked when I saw that I was still alive

Well, who was saying "if MoS is scum, Adele's town"? I was pretty much done for. I guess I felt like there was a higher chance - though it was a desperate one, again - of forcing you to stump than him.

Second, now that the game is over - was I right about your stance on the stump-voting issue?

...

no

, actually. I genuinely believed when the idea was brought up that stumps were across-the-board worse players than the living (in part, I'd like those stumps to note, because the living were some of the most reputable players on the site). Perhaps I overdefended my stance (I'm starting to think I do that; take what I consider to be the right stance for town to take as scum - which is why I suggested the pseudovoting so early - but then overdefending it when people come down on me), but certainly my original opinion of your idea was "no, town shouldn't do that, it'll be counterproductive to them".

I for one am shocked that either MoS or Adele would kill poor me.

Heartbroken really.

... that was me, sorry. I thought we had to get rid of the best player possible, so it was between you and mith - and I was starstruck and wanted to play him. (

so

over that now (:) (jk)

I didn't expect everyone to all of a sudden stop going after Adele and try to kill me.

Yeah, that was a shocker.

Mod-Confirmed innocents are a little different from your standard replacement.

Let alone, as I say, mod-confirmed, unlynchable, Unnightkillable innocents. I mean,

come on

! lol

_____

So, why was this game, to my mind, unbalanced?

I'll foreword this with a basic idea: that 3vs9 is the correct balance for mountainous (I believe?), while tree stump is a mild power role, so town has the equivalent of 2-ish full-strength power-roles.

Well, first off, as I've said, the mechanic works to keep the stronger players around - the scum has to progressively deal with the weakest townies being weeded out while only getting to weed out stronger townies on the

two

nights when they come around. Second, yes, it's essentially nightless. Basically, scum get 2 chances to kill town of choice, one chance to communicate. And we were, as is usual, rushed to get night over with - I don't think I fully realised that that would be my

last

opportunity to talk to my scumbuddy. Which was, I grant, dumb of me.
Also, premature stumping is heavily discouraged from early on. Only the most foolish players will go down that path - while a dumb lynch in a normal game leads to two townie deaths, a dumb stump leads equivalently to

half

a townie death as the votes required are adjusted (if you get what I mean).
Finally, there's

no

downside to townies stumping when in severe trouble, and

no

upside to scum stumping... ever. (:P)

I would, however, be

really interested

to play a version in which the alignment of the tree stumps was not revealed. That'd be

so good

. In fact I pre-in for it being run by anyone, ever.
Or even an SK in the mix would've been good.

Also, I don't want to be put on the same side as Quagmire! Had he been town, the game would've been very different - though probably just as impossible.

[Adele]

night start would've helped.

[Adele]

I still feel like the main complaint here is that a "weak" player was replaced with a strong one - which can happen with any replacement - not that a stump was replaced at all.

For the record, I appealed at the idea of

any

replacement.

Second, more important - there was

nothing

we could do as scum to get rid of Glork. He couldn't be nightkilled even on those one-in-eternity occasions that we went to night.

How relevant is this, really? He was in for one lynch (no stumps) before you went to night, and if he had vanished at that point it wouldn't have affected the outcome in the slightest.[/quote]Brushing awkward bastards under the carpet is a vital part of mafia play. And you bet your boot if I'd had a choice between dropping him and... even

you

, well, it probably would've been him.

[Adele]

Brushing awkward bastards under the carpet is a vital part of mafia play. And you bet your boot if I'd had a choice between dropping him and... even

you

, well, it probably would've been him.

I think you're missing my point. Glork's impact on this game was on/during the last decision of Day 2. It didn't matter that you were unable to kill him Night 2 - if you had gotten rid of

both

of us, you still would almost certainly have gotten lynched.

I could understand the "unkillable" complaint if he had come in earlier in the game. But in this situation, it seems like a bit of a red herring.

I think it's the same problem as cop+doc in setups - the fact that he's

both

mod-confirmed

and

unkillable is a pain in the backside that's bigger than the sum of its parts.

3. if I was Adele I would be pissed off at my partners for adopting sub-optimal tactics regarding role PMs, unless either one of them are liars and cleared it with her before hand or at least apologised for it later... in which case it would be gravy.

I'm

seriously

pissed off at Quagmire (or

was

; the game has ended, and already it's seeping out of my memory like from that book "The Giver"), but am a member of the apparent minority that thinks that MoS' course of action is both ethical and potentially beneficial.

[Adele]

...Wait, but if that happened, why not just look up your role pm?