Open 50: The New C9 - Abandoned!

[Shteven]

Skitzer (he even asked for one)
LML, Manaspryte (punks!)
and Timmers2001.

Above I consider unlikely to respond to prods

Good luck prodding: White, AlyG....if not, replace.

That should be all (as if 6 isn't enough) for now, we'll see

[The Fonz]

White's been gone from the site for over a month.

[Justin Playfair]

Unless I am terribly mistaken I replaced Skitzer.

[curiouskarmadog]

MOD, or whoever, can we please have the first page updated...

[Shteven]

Unless I am terribly mistaken I replaced Skitzer.

Well that would be useful to keep track of. My mistake

[Shteven]

Yeah, so I dropped the ball on my previous post twice, actually.

Timmers2001 was already replaced by the Fonz.

D'oh.

[Justin Playfair]

Shteven,

No rush, but when you get a chance I would appreciate a response to my last post to you.

[JordanA24]

LTG

: I really didn't like how desperate he seemed to keep his vote on SSF, particularly all the excuses he kept posting to attempt to justify it. The early evidence (the defence of 2 players), which is all he seemed to have against SSF for a while, he admitted himself was crap evidence. Was he trying to buddy up to SSF here as well, in an attempt to try and stop SSF questioning his vote?

But you know what, I keep thinking SSF is being disingenuous. He keeps like trying to grease the wheels of the Oman bandwagon. So I am staying with my vote right now. Also I can't exactly switch now anyway as wouldn't that look scummy? Thanks.

How was SSF encouraging the Oman wagon, the only times SSF have mentioned Oman up to this point, he said Oman was protown. And switching your vote wouldn't look scummy at all. Players are expected to switch votes from time to time, in fact, if they stick to one player for what seems an inordinate amount of time for not very good reasons, that looks scummy.

And 2 minutes later, he says

ABWOP I should say Oman vacilates between deflecting attention from Oman or trying to "grease the wheels." I am not really sure what to make of that.

Assuming you meant "SSF vacilates", then in either this post or the above one, you're lying, since in the above, you think SSF is scummy for "greasing the Oman wagon" and in this post, you're not sure what to make of SSF greasing the Oman wagon. So either you're fabricating reasons for finding SSF suspicious, or you're faking not being sure.

I never said I had amazing reasons for voting for SSF. They are pretty stupid, but I am nervous that SSF is mafia. If I cant say it any clearer. I really think you guys are doing a good job getting people to talk in this thread, which is something that has been lacking in my other games. I appreciate you getting me to think more about what I believe. It is frustrating that I can't really be as active as I like to be so I am keeping up as best I can.

So, now you're "nervous" SSF is scum, you should be nervous of anyone being scum, unless they're confirmed town, so that's a pretty null reason. I think in the second half of the post, you're getting desperate, and pleading to us with compliments.

Finally, LML returns with content. Yeah Aimee is still a blackout for me. My wavering suspicions of SSF are what they are: something I am nevrous about. I am starting to see how retarded my fears about SSF have been, but whatever. However I agree aimee was out of nowhere, unless Aimee really puts stock in my curious notes. Oman is right, it maybe a stretch, but it is so very strange I gotta pay attention to it.

Im gonna unvote now just to try to make up my mind about somethings.

unvote SSF

.

Why the sudden change of heart? Calling your reasons for voting SSF retarded seems like a major backtrack.

What did you want to make your mind up on?

I completely disagree with his theory that less posts and a slower game pace benefit the town, less posts mean the town have less posts to analyse for scumminess, and a faster pace means the scum are more likely to slip up.

We're going to have power role claims starting on page 6 or 7.

What makes you say this?

TylerJ

Goes along with voting Jordan with the tone in the early stages in the game. Casts suspicous on Oman for being to careless in bandwagons and sees him trying to throw attention off him. Gets a null tell on White's statement about "short post=townies" and says that if such discussion on things like this were to continue then people would become too focused and miss lynching scum. Counter-reacts to Oman accusing him of past actions such as stating "He's trying to get people to ignore him" Several inrevelant posts later he posts "We should wait until more evidence for or on Oman comes up." It seems like he really wants to push suspision on Oman or want people to make a strong case on him when the evidence arrives. Then he proclaims SSF as scum after evidence is given and after SSF makes a defense he says in that defense he scumhunted and takes back the statement of SSF being scum back and says he's just trying to be humurous. Vote:TylerJ Getting a strong scummy vibe from him.

I see Tyler J as either the sterotypical leader by default or completely anti-town. He really does want to further the discussion, but then when it comes to actaully delivering, he remains aloof or beligerent himself. I think you rightly proclaim some of his behavior as scummy, but he may just be so forceful he does that naturally. I dont know as of yet. What I do know is that a lot of my suspicions of Oman, besides what I percieved as insincerity on Oman's part, were originally pointed out by Tyler. I suspect that several others agreed with him (whether directly or as a concurrent opinion). So you have a single player having a profound impact on a bandwagon.

Ooba-

Would like to see more from this person. Not active in discussion in throwing in some of his opinions or thoughts but instead asks questions refering to what he quotes. Does a short Analysis on people who were involved with the Oman bandwagon and gives little sentiments on the topics with two "No Comment" I don't see the reason in quoting something when you have nothing to say. A theory of my could be he didn't want to press suspicous on certain people but I can't say this is true but it's possible. Netural feeling on him.

I'd like to know why Ooba did the quoting without the analysis. Was his point suposed to have been so self-evident he didnt' feel obligated to point them out? Or does he want to lay the ground work (collect and show the evidence) of a case but does not want to be responsible for the subsequent lynch of a townie. This is counter-town.

Right now Tyler seems more of a suspect than Ooba.

By your logic in this post, shouldn't you find Ooba more suspicious than Tyler? In your analyis of Tyler, you acknowledged that his behaviour could simply be playstyle. While Ooba's laying the groundwork but not actually posting anything that can later be called leading a wagon on who maybe a townie is certainly scummy.

I didn't find the post scummy. I thought it was a mildly curious point that didn't get addressed perhaps as much as it should have been (like a lot of things in this game) but I dont see it as a bit of concern. Tyler has done some other things which are more noteworthy. He has also taken pains to address my concerns and I find they are reasonable. Let me say I still stand by what I said, but Tyler is trying to help keep this game going. That does say something to me and it's generally good. His exact motive of course isn't clear but thats why the game is divided into sides (town, mafia, other antitown). We all get carried away some times and say things we regret. Sometimes they are simple "heat of the moment" we regret afterwards. Of course by the same token these could be scumtells. I still think Tyler is suspicious, but I also feel he is trying to be sincere. Again whether that's in the town's best interests remain to be seen.

That's how I see Tyler. Someone acting to keep the game going (probably good) for unknown motive (good? bad? ugly?).

So, your only motives for finding Tyler scummy is that he has an unknown motive, and that he keeps posting evidence without making a case.

Well, assuming you're town (and not a Mason), everyone but yourself has an unknown motive, so that reason's crap.

As for the posting evidence without making a case, I can vaguely see where you're coming from, but I disagree.

I hate to nitpick in your otherwise clear analyisis, but I am curious what you meant by "pressure".

Votes. Glad to see people agree with me.

Conclusion:

Scummy. A lot of his actions have raised questions in my head, and look pretty scummy to me. His determination to keep his vote on SSF looked especially scummy as well. Not sure which of him and LML are scummier, but both are voteworthy IMO.

SSF

: A lot of his posts seem to lack content, but I think this may be because of a lack of verbosity rather than a lack of actual content.

But, there does seem to be a definate lack of scumhunting in his posts, and not just his early ones, there's quite an even spread of posts with little/no scumhunting. I can live with his lack of motivation excuse for now, but if this carries on, I will be making a proper issue of this.

Conclusion

: Neutral, for now.

Timmers/The Fonz

: Timmers produced no content that can be analysed.

The Fonz hasn't really posted much to analyse either. But I disagree with him saying the Oman wagon is poor.

Oman saying that he'll hop off any wagon when it gets to -2/-1 is scummy, see Post 136 for my reasons why. He never explained this:

Also, Hypocrit Jordanscum just wagoned on me for something "incredibly scummy" that he "missed".

Explain why I am a hypocrit.

And I have generally disagreed with him on a lot of subjects.

Conclusion

: Not really got a proper read on him yet.

Shteven

: I like this guy, I find his arguments to be logical and well-thought through. I see him as genuinly scumhunting most of the time as well, infact, out of all of his posts, I only have issues with these:

I voted for this, but in looking back, it seems like Jordan may be the better choice.

What makes you say this?

It's been mentioned on behalf of omen a few times. Should probably double check if he's used it himself, but metagame defenses aren't really a scumtell imho. They just bother me, because people aren't likely to go read all the other games for a small chance at improving a read.

I disagree that trying to metagame someone can only result in a small improvement in a read of somebody. It can make a huge difference. Let's take the example of Quagmire, in most of his games, he acts like an idiot (Fair enough, this is personal opinion, if you disagree, substitute Quag with someone who you think acts like an idiot in every game), to someone who has never played with Quag before, and has never read a game with him in it, Quag playing like an idiot will look scummy, while someone with more knowledge of Quag's playstyle will know that he does this in every game, so therefore know it's a nulltell.

Seriously, this lack of response doesn't make him that much more likely to be mafia. And I am rather afraid we'll be mislynching town...he's just not giving me much to work with, to let him off the hook.

I don't know, but this gives me a feeling you're keeping your vote on Sammich for the sake of keeping your vote on the leading wagon.

I also find it especially odd that Sammich's post seems to have stopped all other debate. Doesn't anyone else have something to say?

Why is this a problem? All this discussion on Sammich will either result in more votes and pressure on him, or the wagon will stall or even dissapate, maybe to be replaced by another wagon. That's the way the game goes. Why are you trying to deflect the talk on Sammich?

And that's it really.

Conclusion

: Seems protown to me, my only real cause for concern with Shteven is his apparent deflecting of attention from Sammich, which deserves to be looked at further if Sammich ends up being scum.

CKD

:

FoS: Oman

, would be a vote if this wasnt a consistent behavior in every game I am in with him.

Why are you FOSing Oman for what you know is a nulltell?

aimee, last time I am going to try to explain it to you. You have a crazy looking guy who always sharpens knives while mumbling to himself in the park (ie bandwagoning acting scummy). You see this guy and you automatic think, jesus he is going to kill someone (scum) in the park (town). If it was the first time I have ever seen the guy, I would probably call the authories to throw is ass in jail (vote for a lynch). However, you go to 4 other parks and see the same guy acting the same way in every park.

Now the odds that he wants to kill someone (scum) in every park (town) is very low. I dont want to ignore him (no FoS) because the dude is acting very strangely(scummy), but I am not sure he is a killer (scum) either..

thus the FoS.

metagame, for yourself and see what I am talking about

This is a pretty ridiculous anology IMO. The fact of the matter is, Oman does this in nearly every game he's in, therefore it's a nulltell, therefore it's not FOS-worthy.

I think your case against Shteven is poor:

well you also said,

.... "Bump" doesn't give much to reply to; and some players are afraid their post will stand out......


....Bump certainly isn't scummy, but it's also not scum hunting, something Sammich hasn't made any serious effort to do. .....

who is really making something turn 180 degrees?

all I aksed was is someone making a big deal out of it?

keep stretching.

I can't really see how he turned 180 degrees here. In his second quote, while he does say that the bump isn't scummy, combined with the lack of scumhunting in that post and his other posts, it is scummy, hence he says just before it "I still feel Sammich is the play for today", so, really, you're taking quotes out of context, which is scummy.

Can't find much else other than these.

Conclusion

: Slightly scummy, certainly not as lynch-worthy as others in this game anyway.

Ooba

:

And you're scum ..

This post bothers me. It's on Page 2, nobody (or at least no townie) is supposed to be sure of anything on Page 2. Neither does he provide any reasons to back it up in this post or the last one, the one before that, he did put an FOS on Sammich, but that was for Sammich voting LML for being serious on the first page, hardly compelling evidence of someone's scumminess.

First of all , Oman could be considered suspicious for his bandwagoning but thats hardly any reason to put him at 6 so soon .

I disagree.

So i have a feeling theres one or two highly opportunistic scum on the oman bandwagon ..

Lets Analyze the reasons they give for being on it ...

Bandwagons=/=Shamelessness
Bandwagons=Reason

No Comment..

Anyway, Oman's first post doesn't really help him any. All that concrete info in the first legit-game post is not exactly innocent-townie-ish behavior.

He isn't even stating that anything about the bandwagon - He's voting for him because of Oman's first post being big??

That was shameless bandwagoning (Though you have stated you always bandwagon) and of course you piled on a vote to (Shock,Horror) the guy with the most votes of course! At least try to provide a plausible reason when you vote someone.

Forgive me if im wrong but doesn't bandwagoning mean voting for the person with the highest number of votes?

I'm going to throw my lot in with Skitzer and Vote: Omen With the additional reason that jumping on the bandwagon was too soon, and especially since he tried to downplay it. If you're going to join a wagon, own up to it.

No Comment..

I hated ALL of Oman's posts. I can't see how any of his posts help. quick wagons dont help this early.

But you go and vote for a quick wagon on your second post in the game ...

I can't believe I missed such a scummy post. Oman, what is the point of an early bandwagon if you're just going to hop off at -2/-1? I'm not a fan of early wagons for little reason myself, I think they stunt the flow of the game (hence me being so suspicious of LML) and I prefer to wait for someone to post something properly scummy before we pile in on them. But if you're going to go down the early wagon route, why on Earth unvote as soon as it gets to -2/-1, isn't the whole point of an early wagon to pressure. If you try to dissapate a wagon as soon as the player starts feeling pressures, you're just stunting the flow of the game for no reason.

This depends on playstyles i guess . I for one would not keep anyone at -1/-2 unless i know they are most possibly scum ..

Skitzer has basically just joined the bandwagon giving (What in my opinion) is a very lame reason for voting .. So

Vote:skitzer

Again, this post bothers me, for the amount of no comments where there could be content and analysis. Scum are very wary to make sure there posts don't stand out, or cause too much of a concern to people, they'd much prefer to float by in the days, giving as little content as possible and getting noticed as little as possible. Posting things such as "no comment" or other fillers rather than content is a very viable way of doing this, hence my suspicions of this post.

Skitzer was the 3rd person on the wagon, at which point, I personally wouldn't call it a wagon.

Ooba: Could you, or at least explain why you didn't, fill in the blanks of your last post?

I did not comment on Sammich's post because there wasn't any content in it to make out anything except the fact that he was voting Oman for his Bandwagoning.In short a null tell.Couln't think of anything to say for Shteven's post.

You could have said something along the lines of I agree/disagree for Sammich's post or something. Same with Shteven's post, I just can't believe that you couldn't think of anything for either post. IMO, this post also falls into the catagory of trying to avoid the spotlight, like the last post.

Though to be fair, this trend does decline later on, and I think the opposite happens in this post:

Are you happy with the results of Jordan's wagon or do we need to take it all the way to lynch?

Should we delay a lynch if sammich gets to -1 or -2, or is this enough day 1 posting?

Sammich's analysis is a null tell for me (and i know this is WIFOM, but saying someone is something i could imagine a mafia doing)

Shteven on the other hand seems anxious about the lynch and that does seems suspicious ..

Vote : Shteven

and an

FOS:Aimee

if he turns out to be scum .. (Because Post 230 was directed at Aimee and it just seems somewhat scummy to me)

Rather than slipping quietly onto the Sammich wagon, he bucks the trend and votes for Shteven, and FOSes Aimee for spotting something no-one else did. Neither player had much attention on them before this.

Well the game is stagnating a bit and Sammich isn't helping the discussion or being productive - I'm ok with lynching him to move the game along ..

Vote : Sammich

I've already said this before I think, but lynching to move the game along=bad.

I think we need a lynch to move the game along .. (Jordan says lynching for the sake of moving the game along is suspicious .. But this game just strikes me as one where everybody is waiting for something to happen and lynch should probably make it interesting again) .. And as Oman pointed out - we are hardly in LyLo now ..

I'm fine with lynching either Shteven or Sammich..

"We are hardly in lylo now" really stands out for me in this post. I doesn't matter whether we are in lylo or not, town should be trying to find the correct lynch, not the quick-fix lynch. Trying to move the game along by suggesting quick lynch targets is a very easy way for the scum to get the town to lynch who they want without really being that culpable for it afterwards. Using the excuse "We are hardly in lylo now" gives me the impression that that is your aim, to get the town to lynch who you want.

Conclusion

: Kinda scummy, I think he's worth keeping an eye on, I think he is the current dark horse for who I think is the most deserving of a lynch so far.

I think it's best to post this now to keep the game moving, and do the final two later on.

[Shteven]

Shteven, thank you for answering my post. I’m sorry about the length, and I understand some things may have confused you because of that. So permit me to clarify.

First, though, in the case of your first point. No, I am not stretching. Because when you say “it isn’t the whole story” you are in fact saying that somehow the vig killing a random townsperson on night 0 with no information isn’t just a terrible move. Now please explain how this would be different than the entire town randomly determining a lynch before any discussion on day one. In saying that the town would have more information after discussion you don’t prove that this is different. The vig would also have more information then. Which is why your point doesn’t ring true at all. If you wouldn’t approve a die enforced random lynch before discussion you also can’t approve of the vig killing with absolutely no information. If you want to try explaining this again, please do.

This one's a simple explaination: as I said before in my first response:

It is this reason why your extension of this principle to random lynches is wrong, and possibly misleading. There is information after day 1.

In other words, I'm not assuming the first post day 1 was someone rolling a dice and then everyone stuck to it. When I referred to a day 1 lynch, I was talking about a consensus based on the posts of that day. If you rolled a dice in the first post of the day and stuck to it, that would be pretty much the same. I don't see that as ever happening, whereas night 0 vig kills are entirely possible. Our lynch at the end of today will be a better kill than the vig's attack was. That's all.

Now you also use meta a couple of other times, but this is the clearest…let’s say contrast. And so I ask you again, Shteven, are you only nervous about meta-game defenses when someone else is using them?

I really thought this was clear. I have not used meta "a couple of other times"...the only time I've mentioned one is in conjunction with my stance on them. That they are a necessary evil. Other people are allowed to use them just as much as I do; which isn't often, but it happens.

All right. Let’s move on to bandwagoning.

You say that Jordan’s wagon was too steep for you. Your vote would have put him at L-2

When asked about your theory on bandwagons you say:

Early wagons at -2 are pressure.

Now this is a small contradiction, but I don’t think much of it either. If not for the much more huge contradiction I detail in what follows I wouldn’t have even posted it.

But this:

But if you outright tell the person it's just pressure, then there is no pressure. And that's just distracting.

Which you posted to Oman, followed by this:

I'd like to conduct a poll, for everyone: Should we delay a lynch if sammich gets to -1 or -2,

Is just insane. Now this post has much bigger things wrong with it than just this, but you’re proposing that the whole town tell Sammich that the bandwagon on him is just for pressure. Now you can play whatever games you like with this, say it wasn’t about pressure, it was about delaying for discussion, but the end result is even more damaging. No one who is told they are getting voted on just to put pressure on them really believes that. But any player assured by a poll of everyone in town that there should be a delay in lynching them if they get to -1 or -2 knows that there isn’t a player in town who will want the attention putting that last vote on them will get them. The people who are already convinced to that level that they’re guilty are already voting for them.

The two statements "early bandwagons at -2 are pressure" and that Jordan's wagon was too steep for me to join were NOT RELATED.

I'm not sure there's a logical proof being built here. I thought I responded to this already: I'm saying that -2 is enough to be pressure; that you shouldn't put somone at -1 just for pressure. -1 (in a game of this size) should mean you would be happy to see him hammered right away. It doesn't mean I think that every wagon should go to -2 to apply pressure. I felt that -3 was plenty of pressure for Jordan. Other players were applying the pressure; as I wasn't convinced of his guilt, I saw no reason to add pressure. If I thought he was scum, I would have been glad to move the wagon to -2...But I'm not going to join a wagon I don't believe in no matter how many votes it does or doesn't have. You're assuming I have to follow my own meta-game wagoning rules regardless of guilt. I don't join wagons on people I think may be town.

As far as the poll for Sammich, I agree it was poor play. The votes themselves are the poll, I should have just let them do the talking. What I was afraid of, though, was the day ending, and not Sammich being hung. Sammich being hung would have been fine by me.

You were also confused about the Jordan pressure comment I made. Well the only time you brought up that:

Oman's case is based on his admitted band wagoning. I voted for this, but in looking back, it seems like Jordan may be the better choice.

was in the very same post where you said this:

What have I done that you think I deserve more suspicion than Jordan, who you've already claimed is the SK?

Are you still having a hard time seeing why this is scummy? And are you still having a hard time understanding why you never bringing up anything more about it after the pressure you were under from LML was gone seems a tad suspicious?

These two quotes are also unrelated. The first one is expressing my views on the players, the second is asking about LML's views. I'm not claiming any information in the second quote, I was trying to get LML to explain himself or make a further mistake.

LML claims to have positively ID'ed the Serial killer, is voting for Jordan, and then makes the backwards statement that other people should be more suspicious of me than Jordan? Jordan, the Serial Killer he was still voting for when telling people to vote for me? This bothered me, I thought it was scummy, and I was trying to get him to reveal himself further. This is the direct reason for why I never brought up anything more about LML's suspicion of me...I was waiting for the response. Still would be, if I thought he was still playing.

As for bringing up more about Oman or Jordan, I'll do a reread. At this point I'm really not sure about either of them, it's been too long.

By the way, my not commenting on this, which you described as a scummy tactic on my part, was because it had already been discussed. Which I said.

I do my best to avoid being scummy each game and I think you should too. Other than a few people saying I'm too defensive I think I do a pretty good job, we'll see

Now about Sammich, and I will make it very clear. When you tell him it’s only one vote. When you tell him it’s not personal. Quotes like this:

Seriously, this lack of response doesn't make him that much more likely to be mafia. And I am rather afraid we'll be mislynching town...he's just not giving me much to work with, to let him off the hook.

And certainly your “poll” might be interpreted as pushing a Sammich lynch while at the same time you were disowning it. Oh, and you were awfully sweet about your response on your post calling for more comments from those who hadn’t posted. So let’s quote that in context, okay?

I also find it especially odd that Sammich's post seems to have stopped all other debate. Doesn't anyone else have something to say?

Sammich's post was last tuesday 3:46 forum time. Since then (four days) the following players have not posted ONCE:

Now you say you were inviting them to post on Sammich. But in that first line you pretty clearly say “Sammich's post seems to have stopped all other debate.”. So if you weren't interested in talking about Jordan, because you were suspicious of Sammich, what would that other discussion have been?

And then you immediately post this:

I'm trying to avoid having tunnel vision and letting other players slide by. You're welcome to keep asking sammich repeatedly why he thinks I'm a power role (seriously I have no idea what a doctor tell would even look like) but when you get another "=\", I'm not going to call that productive dialog

So this argues that, in fact, you were trying to pose as though you were interested in going other places. Glad you’ve already answered my first post like this:

Allow me to answer your above question: I continued to post about Sammich because I felt Sammich was scummy and wanted to lynch him. Would you propose I talk about Jordan in order to get Sammich lynched instead?

Okay, you said that was a rhetorical question when you asked it. So why were you saying then that you wanted "other discussion" and that you wanted to avoid "tunneling" when (and thanks for confirming in your post above) you were tunneling on Sammich?

Wouldn’t you have wanted other players to keep talking about him, too?

Oh that’s right, you did. You said that in your first response to me, too:

My goal was not to get people to stop talking about Sammich. My goal was to get the same 3 people to stop talking about Sammich, and get a wider range of opinions.

And further:

Certainly, they're welcome to talk about any player, but Sammich held my main interest at the time, and yes, I'd like to hear more people talk about him.

Really, except for the sneaky little bit pointing out where Sammich's post was, those posts above don't appear to be saying that at all. But yes, I knew it was what you were doing, and thank you for confirming it. Makes those posts just awful curious, though.

There are a couple other bits we can go back to in your defense, but this has probably gone on long enough. I think I’ve put things close enough together now that you can see them. Thank you for any responses.

They're really pretty simple calls for lurkers to stop lurking. There was also a side dish of frustration over Sammich's refusal to post relevant content:

You're welcome to keep asking sammich repeatedly why he thinks I'm a power role (seriously I have no idea what a doctor tell would even look like) but when you get another "=\", I'm not going to call that productive dialog

What do you feel the posts were saying? If my message wasn't clear, let me know and I'll try to avoid misleading people in the future. I wanted to get more responses from people who hadn't been posting, and I thought I said that in a pretty direct way. I still consider him trying to out power roles as the clearest, black-and-white mistake made in this game. Perhaps it won't be enough to lynch him because too many people think it's so obvious it's just poor town play, but I'd be willing to see him lynched for it. One of the things that makes me feel it really was scummy is that he refused to talk about it. Claiming to not have anything to say about an analysis and actively lurking doesn't sound like townie who made a mistake to me. So on day 1, I think it's going to be our best shot, unless something very significant happens.

[LaptopGun]

Excuse me if I take awhile to decide my vote. And it takes a while to change my mind about a vote. I’m slow. Sorry. I was about to make up my mind about Oman when the game started to petter out and things haven’t been the same since.

Unvote

Any one have a clue why this game is moving along so so fast. Is it just our motely crew of players, random game movies, or is (are) player(s) manipulating things? At the rate we are going, we're going to have power role claims starting on page 6 or 7.

Fast moving game -> Players in a rush to post -> Scum more likely to screw up.

You seem to be wanting this game to slow down, care to explain why?

Whilst running the risk of being accused of OMGUS,

Vote: LaptopGun

.

=o

You do realize he snuck a OMGUS vote in and didn’t even try to explain, right? I didn’t really call him on it then, and I got crucified for that later when I brought it up later. I didn't then because I was changing my mind, and about to vote someone else. People apparently find this scummy.

I felt people would accuse me of being a flipflop if I cnaged my mind from SSF quickly. It seems a few of you even did while others feel what was called tunnel vision was scummy.

I still see the fast moving game leads to scum screwing up argument as a cover for fast moving game scum gets town to screw up. That’s my opinion and my logic, if you guys care to call it crap, be my guest. I didn’t see a lot of particularly good logic coming in this game at the time. Clearly this has changed.
I even posted :

Sorry SSF I interpreted it as more the later and not the former.

White, I've tried to explain myself. I dont like fast games that quickly get townies accidently killed. I do like them when the Mafia slip up. I know it is "glass is half full/empty deal." Take it how you will. I think we have slowed down becsause the Jordan bandwagon has stalled. It seems debate about me is keeping things trucking...

Tyler I really don't have a lot to change it one way or another, so I am standing pat.

Exasperation drove me to sarcasm and say that “At this rate we’ll have roll claims in a couple pages <6?>” If I can’t be sarcastic, then how can any of your other stuff be non-scummy? I find we have some sarcastic people there. I do find we have quite a few sarcastic people. Sorry, next time I’ll load my sarcastic posts up with have a dozen smilies. I’ll say it until I’m blue in the face, I felt the fast moving game was dangerous. Clearly I will admit the stage we were in of a slow death wasn't much better.

On Ooba- I was more worried about someone who posts very often. Ooba hasn’t done a hell of a lot besides this. So in your eyes I should have made a bigger deal of Ooba or focused on Tyler?

[curiouskarmadog]

MOD, or whoever, can we please have the first page updated...

ALSO A VOTE COUNT!!!!

[TylerJ]

I have been gone through the weekend and probably wont be on much today. Tommorow I will get caught up.

[Justin Playfair]

Shteven,

I hate to keep banging away at this, but your response to this is clearly untrue. In your last post to me you say this:

I really thought this was clear. I have not used meta "a couple of other times"...the only time I've mentioned one is in conjunction with my stance on them. That they are a necessary evil. Other people are allowed to use them just as much as I do; which isn't often, but it happens.

Which does not answer the question I was asking, but deflects from it. Once again, here are the two posts which are troubling me:

As far as being overdefensive, I'll go on the record right now as a very defensive player. If someone says something about me, I believe it merits a response. The above line by Aimee was incorrect, and I'm fixing it. I don't expect anyone to read a 100+ page and still growing game, but if you want to see my play style, I was just lynched in mafia 64 and was a (now) proven townie who defended himself constantly. Right from day one I got into extensive arguments with Glork.

Fortunately for those who don't want to read 100+ pages, White, LML, and manaspryte were all in that game so just ask them.

This is clearly you using a meta-defense, for yourself, with no nervousness about it. You even call on others to support your meta-defense.

Then:

Metagame defenses make me nervous, but I can't help realizing they're useful. People do play differently; but I'm really not interested in reading 2-3 games from player's past just to figure out how to play this game.

Now it is being used on behalf of another player and it makes you nervous. This is a clear contradiction. Now you have danced around this twice, even to the point, in the quote above, to claim that:

the only time I've mentioned one is in conjunction with my stance on them.

This isn’t just clearly not true, but it was clearly not true based only on the direct quotes I used in the above post. It is hard for me to even imagine another interpretation of this than that you are continuing to engage in defense by deflection, but if you can provide another reason for this most curious assertion on your part I would be delighted to hear it.

But in addition to this, you do use meta again, though as I said before in more benign circumstances than the posts above, where you are very clearly first using a meta-game defense on your own behalf and then trying to minimize it when it was used in the case of Oman.

There are other things which bother me in your last post but let’s start simply, with just this point. You used a meta defense the first time you came under pressure, even going so far as to invite other players to meta-confirm what you claimed. You then said meta-defenses made you nervous when they were being used to defend Oman. Can you please explain your immediate use of a meta-defense in your own case in light of your distrust of a meta-defense in Oman’s?

[Shteven]

Actually, Justin, my "meta-defense" that came out of "nowhere" was a response to this:

*munches popcorn* This is cooking along just fine.

Anything else to add?

Defensiveness =/= Scumtell

Over

defensiveness = Scumtell

Defending yourself obviously isn't a scumtell, otherwise any Mafia game would just go like this:

Player 1: You're scum because <so and so>
Player 2: No I'm not beacause <so and so>
Player 1: Well now I'm more sure you're scum because you're getting defensive.

Obviously, this wouldn't work.

When a player starts getting overdefensive, like snapping, all-caps and getting really defensive for not much of a reason, that's a scumtell.

And in addition, I don't consider that a meta-defense; as no one was attacking me. It was an explanation of my general play style. This is a pretty thin line though, because my answer would be the same, just no one was actually attacking me. It was a somewhat-game-theory response to Jordan's post.

[Shteven]

For those who would like to see this in more context, start reading from the top of page 3 down. My post is roughly in the middle of that page, and you'll see it follows the conversation. The last line of the same post that Justin keeps quoting was:

But don't worry, I'm not a big fan of CAPITAL LETTERS.

Which was a direct response to Jordan's:

When a player starts getting overdefensive, like snapping, all-caps and getting really defensive for not much of a reason, that's a scumtell.

I hadn't gone back to reread this until just now. Starting to wonder about Justin, honestly.

[Justin Playfair]

Shteven, it was a meta-defense under the most gentle of pressure. You used it in your defense.

You then said it made you nervous when it was used in defense of Oman. I never said your use of a meta-defense came out of "nowhere". I said it seemed in contradiction to your later distrust of meta defenses when used on behalf of another player.

You have not yet addressed this inconsistency. You have now jumped through a number of hoops to avoid doing so.

[Shteven]

I have addressed it several times, you just don't seem to be satisfied with the explanation. I am not attacking Oman, you are making far too big a deal out of this. My vote is for Sammich. Oman is suspicious, but not that much so.

[Justin Playfair]

All right. Last try. If another player used a meta-defense about himself and then claimed it made him nervous when it was applied to someone else, what would it make you think of that player?

Now, onto this:

Oman's case is based on his admitted band wagoning. I voted for this, but in looking back, it seems like Jordan may be the better choice.

What have I done that you think I deserve more suspicion than Jordan, who you've already claimed is the SK?

These two quotes are from the same post.

You were under pressure from LML.

You ask what you had done to deserve more suspicion than Jordan.

You post that Jordan may have been the better choice to bandwagon.

Never again do you mention why Jordan would have been the better choice. Never do you return to this thought at all.

Why, at the moment you came under pressure from LML, did you reconsider whether Jordan, LML's other main suspect, may have been a better choice to bandwagon?

Why did you no longer consider this once LML, and his pressure, were absent?

Saying these were two separate thoughts is not an answer to this, because you are asking us to accept the amazing coincidence that at the same moment you came under increased pressure from LML you happened, as a completely unrelated notion, to think that LML's other main suspect, Jordan, might have been a better target than Oman to bandwagon.

You are then asking us to believe that, also coincidentally, once LML's pressure was gone you decided that Jordan wasn't. And that neither when you began to consider that Jordan might have been a better bandwagon, or when you no longer were, you bothered to provide any reasoning behind your thoughts.

Give your explanation, however, please expand on why you never looked back at Jordan again.

Thank you for any answers provided.

[Shteven]

I thought I had already answered this one also. In fact, it was answered on page 6!

Anyways, I consider that to be a part of a conversation between me and LML, and since he's gone, it ended. The reason I mentioned myself/Jordan was because he voted for Jordan/Fos'ed me, so I was looking for more information about why he thought Jordan was more suspicious than me. Let me quote his post:

vote: Jordan

FoS: shteven

Tone thing is pretty big, but I'm more concerned about the way they both have tried to move suspicion back onto LML (although shteven not as much as Jordan). I don't understand how anything LML has done so far is anti-town.

I think you meant "although Jordan not as much as Shteven".

This post in particular was aimee's vote, but in pervious posts LML had done exactly the same voting strategy: voting for Jordan and FOS'ing me. I thought it was strange that 1) they mirrored each other's votes as well as FOS, and 2) that he was advocating voting for me over Jordan, when his vote was on Jordan. You'd have expected him to switch his vote, no?

I was trying to get an answer out him regarding his FOS/Vote being reversed. I didn't like the way he was rolefishing either:

I wouldn't be shocked that one of them (Jordan and Shteven) is the SK and the other is the Vig.

But I did not yet feel I had enough of a case to attack him directly. I was trying to get him to expand on it to see if it was a mistake/overconfident townie or if he was scum. I'd been curious about LML's play for some time, actually...See for example, this post of mine.

As for the exact time I mentioned that jordan may have been the "better choice" - This was back on page 6; and was mostly due to me not feeling that good about Oman anymore. Oman basically wagoned shamelessly, but doing so once on day one isn't really a solid case. I was curious about the other camp, which had picked up 5 people's votes (not all at the same time, though) so there were certainly several townies on it at some point. However, my primary concern was getting more information out of LML because I can't get a read on his page 1 attack alone.

As alluded to before, this was all explained on page 6:

I'm a bit curious what LML is trying to pull off here. He's already started the largest bandwagon so far, getting five votes for attacking one post (the response vote may also have helped fuel the wagon). He's now trying to start a brand new wagon? Granted wagons shift frequently at the start of the game, but it seems like LML may be trying to throw out anything that will stick at this point. What have I done that you think I deserve more suspicion than Jordan, who you've already claimed is the SK?

I'm aware that I may be playing into Aimee's concerns here, but I think it would be doing the town a disservice to be silent.

It has been pointed out that the last line is needlessly grandiose and I agree; it was silly to add.

In short, I was trying to hunt scum; I was suspect of LML but felt I needed more ammo before bringing the case (voting). This post serves as a pretty decent summary of the forming case in retrospect, although I wasn't designing it as such.

[Shteven]

Oh, in my eagerness to answer your second point, I skipped over the first point:

All right. Last try. If another player used a meta-defense about himself and then claimed it made him nervous when it was applied to someone else, what would it make you think of that player?

When other players use meta defenses I tend to ignore them

and

the attack made. I will generally say something about not wanting to really read 40 pages and just judge them on the current game. This has lead to me voting Albert B. Rampage/TCS in some other games. Not because they claimed a meta-defense, but because they acted scummy and I didn't feel like verifying it was a universal behavior for them.

[LaptopGun]

Shteven- Am I missing something? I hate to jump in on this but: Are you saying you never bother checking up on meta-defenses for other people and just go with a "what have you done for me now" ? If that's true, why didn't you just say so? Did I miss read you? Tell me I'm wrong, cause I have no real way to evaluate it.

[TylerJ]

Man! all of these long posts... A lot of unexpected things came up. I can't garuntee I will read all of this right now, but I will try.

[TylerJ]

Did a little catching up, unfortunately no lightbulbs have lit up yet. The analysis on LTG had me thinking though. But I will have to look at it more carefully and consider it more in depth.

[Shteven]

Shteven- Am I missing something? I hate to jump in on this but: Are you saying you never bother checking up on meta-defenses for other people and just go with a "what have you done for me now" ? If that's true, why didn't you just say so? Did I miss read you? Tell me I'm wrong, cause I have no real way to evaluate it.

You're more than welcome to jump in - I'd love to have more than two or three people playing this game! And yes, I rarely do check meta defenses. I haven't played that great a number of games here (I think around 4-5) and I'm not really keen on reading past games for possible insights into a single player. I would rather judge people based on this game itself. Is this an unusual stance? Is everyone else reading background games on the people they play with?

[LaptopGun]

I would have expected you to have said it a bit more convincingly early. That nugget of wisdom is helping with my analysis of your "defense" in light of justin's "attack" on you. (not in a literal sense, just logically here). If it's any consolation, this is my third game.