Mini #564 - Mafia in Crubtown - Game Over

[Pink Puppy]

vote vikingfan

for being in both my minis right now.

[Pink Puppy]

vote vikingfan

for being in both my minis right now.

OMGUS

unvote vote Pink Puppy

Don't worry I now have a third mini that you are not in.

[Pink Puppy]

It was a random vote... I would never seriously vote anyone based on the fact that they were in another mini with me. I mean... that tells me nothing serious.

But, I don't know why it bothers you so much. I thought you OMGUS'ed me as a joke too. But I guess my vote on you really bothers you. I didn't take it off because I'm not sure where else to put it yet... and it's not like you're about to be lynched.

[Pink Puppy]

Talk about jumpy/defensive.

Unvote, Vote windkirby

I got a well-backed-up FOS. I'm not supposed to react or something?

There is a fine line about being defensive. If people are accusing you, there's really nothing for you to do but defend yourself. But where does it become too much? I'm not really sure myself, and I think windkirby is sort of riding the line so far. "Defensive" is not something that necessarily makes me think someone is scummy, but makes me pay more attention to them to see if I can see something REALLY scummy.

And the above quote made me think, because windkirby says he "got a well-backed-up FOS." (I think he's talking about zeddicus' FOS btw). But sounds to me like even windkirby believes the fos had good reason -- like he felt caught. Usually people don't say it like that. They call it a crap fos (because they know it to be wrong) or they just ignore it, because afterall, it's only an FOS. I don't know about other people, but I don't take FOSes very seriously anyway.

On another topic: can anyone get me a cliffs notes version of quantum fruit posts?

[Pink Puppy]

Okay so I forced myself to go through Quantumfruit's post. I could not find the cliff notes anywhere so I made my own.

@Cephrir:

QuantumFruit wrote:
At this point, there appear to be two "camps," if I may say so: those dismissing joke votes as joke votes, and those reading into joke votes and saying that they have elements of scum/town. The former could be looked at as trying to cover up their potentially scummy actions and hence trying too hard not to look like scum - because of this, they're scum; the latter could be looked at as trying too hard to appear pro-town because they're going into overkill mode and attacking every minor divergence as scum.


Bit of an overreaction here. It's a bit much to say that those dismissing joke votes as jokes are trying to cover scummy random votes, although from this statement it is obvious which "camp" you'd put yourself in. Besides, you assume that those people made scummy random votes that needed to be covered up, which isn't neccessarily the case. Reading too hard into random votes isn't a tell either, it's just what some people do. The divergent opinions here, I think, are really just a simple disagreement and nothing more.

Congratulations, you've restated my thesis! What camp I'm in is completely irrelevant - I'm saying either action could be perceived as scummy, whether it be dismissing scum votes or reading too much into them. For that reason, I think we should look into the random votes as an area to start from, but ultimately not take them too seriously and get off track (because I see how that could happen from either approach).

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Quatum thinks we can read into random voting stage, but not be entirely certain about scumminess.

I'm with her here. The first bits of discussion don't have that much to go on, but I think they're very important. If we just shrug and say "we have nothing to go on," or "it's too hard to tell right now" then nothing ever gets done, scum can hide, and the game drags.

You happened to miss my point in this analysis, however:

Quote:
At this point, I could honestly FOS everyone who's been participating, but I don't think it'd do much good.

That might indicate to you that you're reading too much into things and scumhunting too overzealously at this point in the game.

Or it might indicate that I'm being dismissive and saying that anything could be scummy, but it isn't necessarily. That's essentially what I'm doing. I haven't made my mind up about anyone. I see how certain things people do could be scummy, but the game hasn't progressed enough for me to make my mind up about any player. I don't know how they normally play. I don't know their motivations. I haven't seen them under pressure. Me, scum-hunting? What basis do I have, pray tell?

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Quantum thinks we can't know anything for sure at this stage. And she's not scumhunting.

Yeah, you know, nothing is for certain. But you have to take a stand and see what reactions you get and see if someone says anything to change your mind or solidify your suspicion.

And why aren't you scum hunting? What page will you start?

@windkirby:

Talitha - You said she was jumpy and long-winded.
My opinion was that if she had made such a long post explaining a simple joke vote on the first page (so early in the game), then THAT would be weird. However, as the game goes on, it gets progressively less jokey, so if you're going to make a jokevote on the second page, it will probably need more than just a simple sentence.

Actually, I said I was long-winded. She said I was jumpy. Plus, I didn't really give the joke vote that much explanation, there just seemed to be numerous jokes I can make. Coincidentally, I'm not a very funny person, so I failed.

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Quantum is cursed with unfunniness. She is sorry.

Also, yeah, why did you feel the need to give such an in-depth explanation to your joke vote? I mean, you've already explained it before, VoD was just pointing out that it was kind of suspicious - not enough to merit a vote, just kind of suspicious. The fact that you got really defensive could be something we should look into as the game continues.

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Windkirby is defensive to da max!

As I said before, I don't put that much stock in somebody being defensive. They have to respond to your accusations. It does make me look into their posts more closely though, and see if I can find any scumminess. But defensiveness isn't bad by itself, IMO.

@zeddicus:

Quote:
What happened was that I looked at mozsugg's vote and thought it was like maybe a 2/10 on my scum-o-meter

it registered on your scumdar at all? yet it was "not serious"?

seems odd.

I think he was more so stating that unless it was a joke vote, that degree of scumminess wouldn't merit a vote. Hence, not a serious vote. I imagine for a serious vote it'd have to be at least above 5. Seriously, though, the purpose of a joke vote (imo) is primarily to prod at someone and have them justify themselves. If windkirby felt his joke vote would elicit that response, then there was a reason for doing it - after all, we must have some basis for joke votes (though, sometimes, it is just for kicks). The vote itself wasn't scummy, I think, but the amount of attention windkirby paid it potentially was.

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: It was not windkirby's joke voting (or slight reason voting) that was scummy, it was his defensiveness.

See above -- defensiveness tells me nothing.

Also,

@Cephrir again:

Quote:
I never said the vote was random: stop twisting my words. There's a huge difference between a random vote and a not serious vote.

A lot of people will take them as the same thing, and they might as well be.

Wrong. There's a big difference. I just explained the difference. Random would be a dice roll. Even a joke vote (assuming no dice roll, or random number generator was used) is not random.

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Joke votes are not random.

Personally, I don't see the difference. I understand the technicality, but I don't see why you are pushing the difference between joke and random votes, when you don't even think we can read into much at the beginning of that game anyway. I believe you can learn a lot from the beginning of the game, but not from the random votes. It's more about what they say and how they say it that counts for me.

OVERALL: After readin that whole long thing, I feel it was actually very thin on content (sorry!). I think quantum's biggest reason for voting windkirby is simply that he seems defensive. I don't think being "defensive" is any indication of scumminess. And after reading that whole thing I am starting to feel like windkirby doesn't deserve all the suspicion he is getting.

A question for all: Is being "defensive" a sign of scumminess? And where do you draw the line between answering people's concerns and being "defensive"?

[Pink Puppy]

Pinkpuppy-

I used the term "well-backed-up" because he gave an explanation of moderate length to it. Had he said something shorter like "FOS on windkirby for the rather contradictory post," I wouldn't have used that term.

Also, sparknotes-dot-com might have them.

I'm actually much more on your side now and more inclined to believe your explanation now. After wading through quantum's post.

[Pink Puppy]

It occurs to me that quantum will hate that I made her post into cliff notes and boiled down her arguments. Sorry in advance, but you did admit to being longwinded. I provided your originial text so people can read it if they don't agree with what I wrote.

[Pink Puppy]

unvote; vote mozsuggs

the game is only a week old.

[Pink Puppy]

I think the nuances that quantum fruit is using to explain herself are useless and confusing. I mean, I feel like she's just taking up space now and distracting from any real arguments by arguing semantics.

And why aren't you scum hunting? What page will you start?

I'm setting up scum-hunting. I mean, no one's really scum-hunting yet. That's more so what I was saying. I'm analyzing players/play-styles. I'm reading into people's posts. I'm pointing out what I notice, defending or "attacking" as I see fit. At this point, though, I'm not going to pressure anyone. I'm not doing the confrontational bit of scum-hunting yet. Scum-tracking perhaps.

I had no idea there was a difference between scumhunting and "setting up scum-hunting." For all intensive purposes, I think there is no difference. You're either looking for scum or you're not. At the beginning of the game, you can be less sure of your findings, but you are still looking for scum. Or at least you should be.

I just think you're wishy-washy. Flippy-floppy. You want it both ways with everything, finding a way to say you're scum hunting, but not really. You're "setting up scum hunting." Which is neither here nor there. It's like if somebody asked you "are you pregnant" and you said, "Yes, I'm a little bit pregnant." How can you be a little bit pregnant?? You either are or you're not!

unvote; vote quantum

BTW, I still think mozsuggs deserves a vote, but quantum more so. Check out all of mozsuggs posts. He has posted nothing of substance and commented on none of the discussions, yet pops in for a vote to get things going.

[Pink Puppy]

Shall we just kill someone?

Now is the time to post more content, unless you're scum.


@quantum -- I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Sorry if I did.

About the nuances....I generally feel that "trying to have it both ways" is scummy, because it signals a person who is molding their suspicions to fit whatever person they want to target. Like they are picking the target first, and worrying about reasons later. Which is what a townie would never do.

[Pink Puppy]

Supporting a wagon from the sidelines but not committing yourself to it is a really scummy thing to do.

I agree with this.

It's sort of inciting the mob to take action without taking the action yourself and thus, avoiding the heat.

[Pink Puppy]

I think he's trying to say use better arguments that don't require us to lynch you to find out.

[Pink Puppy]

DUDE!

Did you just claim when you have one vote on you and one FOS?!?!

I don't know what to think of you right now. Someone suggested maybe you're a jester. Gotta say you sound like one.

I would be inclined to say you're just new to the game, and that's why you made the above freak-out post. Except you say:

n this game, as soon as someone wants you lynched, you prob will get lynched/

Which is a common newbie misunderstanding. They think that a few votes means they will be lynched, when often that is not the case at all. Often people vote you for more content or because they want you to explain something. Or they change their mind later.

I can understand a newbie thinking this is more serious than it is. Except that if you have been reading this game at all you will see that not every vote leads to a lynch! Many times SEVERAL votes do not lead to a lynch.

My problem with you is this:

UNVOTE, VOTE QUANTUM FRUIT

Purely a bandwagon manoevre. Have no idea.

Purely a bandwagon move??? So you do understand the concept of bandwagons, eh? Then you should not freak out when you have one vote and one FOS on you.

This is the biggest inconsistency in your play, IMO.

[Pink Puppy]

Mozsuggs... you're actually starting to make me laugh!

But I have to ask again, if you are familiar with bandwagoning, why did you freak out when you had one vote and one FOS on you? I would think someone who knows what a bandwagon is, wouldn't get so upset if it happens to them (not that it did happen to you... but you get it, right?).

[Pink Puppy]

Cephir has always been desperate to get a lynch

Sort of like hte person who said this:

UNVOTE

VOTE CEPHRIR

Just to speed things up. No justification at all, but it would be cool to get a lynch this century.

Or this:

Shall we just kill someone?

Or this:

UNVOTE, VOTE QUANTUM FRUIT

Purely a bandwagon manoevre. Have no idea.

[Pink Puppy]

vote: thevampireofdusseldorf

for putting the hammer on although

Mozsugs, I dont feel like reading through all your recent posts just yet, I may go back to look over them for amusment at some stage.

I think you should read all of a person's posts before putting the hammer on!

And saying he might read M's posts sometime for amusement... sounds like he's having too much fun here. I would expect VoD to atleast be a little nervous about hammering. It just seems like he can't contain his excitement.

[Pink Puppy]

Just because something is an obvious scum action doesn't mean scum try not to do it. They can do it and then say, "oops I didn't realize" or "do you really think scum would be that stupid?" Both arguments are WIFOM because we can't know their motivation.

If we let people get away with scummy play, then we really decrease our ability to tell scummy play from townie play.

[Pink Puppy]

I agree that I don't like how windkirby says Mozsuggs had a confessional collapse, and how quantum called him a suicide. I think suicide is only used when you vote yourself -- which mozsuggs never did.

But I don't agree that scum tells favor mafia. That would be pretty ridiculous. Scum tells don't mean a person is 100% definitely mafia. They just mean that if you lynch a person who gives a scum tell, you are more likely to lynch mafia than if you had lynched randomly. No scum tell is 100%

I do agree context is important though too. I don't so much mind that you put the hammer on mozsuggs... or even that you voted him. I only mind that you were happy to lynch someone without reading all their posts, and that you sounded amused/excited. That attitude seems off to me.

[Pink Puppy]

P P I dont think you understand my post properly:
I think using scum tells on their own makes lynching town easier for scum....

I don't so much mind that you put the hammer on mozsuggs... or even that you voted him. I only mind that you were happy to lynch someone without reading all their posts, and that you sounded amused/excited. That attitude seems off to me.

Ok you are approacing your conclusion with the belief that I was aware of the fact that I was lynching moz which sure you are entitled to do but if you view it under the belief that I was unaware then the not reading all of mozs post and being amused take on a different meaning.
It is getting kinda frustrating that all these conclusions are being done on the basis of me knowing I was hammering moz. If the first premise for the accusations are flawed then I can hardly argue with the conclusions.

I can't take your word for the fact that you didn't know you were hammering. You could easily be lying.

Even if you didn't know you were hammering, you HAD to know that a lot of people were voting mozsuggs and he was getting close. That might be the time to like... CHECK to see how many votes the guy has on him.

[Pink Puppy]

VoD, if you had only read the last half a page before you voted, you would have seen a vote count, with mozsuggs at 4 votes, and then zeddicus voted moz, and then cephrir did. That puts moz at 6 votes before your post.

It wasn't that confusing.

[Pink Puppy]

I still feel the same way, whether is was the lyncher or the L-1, whether you knew it was or not.

I will quote myself here for you

I don't so much mind that you put the hammer on mozsuggs... or even that you voted him. I only mind that you were happy to lynch someone without reading all their posts, and that you sounded amused/excited. That attitude seems off to me.

[Pink Puppy]

It's just that nothing he has said has made me feel any better about him. And he's not really addressing my point that he didn't read moz's posts, or that he seemed to have a joking attitude. He's only saying that he wouldn't have acted that way if he had known it was a lynch, and he didn't realize his vote was the hammer. And that argument is WIFOM because I can't ever know his motivation.

Do I want you guys to run him to a claim? Only if you think he's scum too! I'm not trying to make decisions for everyone. Feel free to persue something else if you wish.

And why should I give VoD the benefit of the doubt? If I see something scummier, I'll vote someone else, and just file this problem I have with VoD away for later. If he does other things that I find fishy, I would return.

To be honest, I'm sure I have problems with other people's play too. But I just siezed on VoD because because of how he didn't read all of moz's posts and was acting too jokey during a lynch. These jumped out at me. But there are other things that I haven't analyzed fully. Like for instance how you jumped off mozsuggs and then jumped back on. Not sure what that means, if anything, but I would like to read your posts again.

[Pink Puppy]

Oh well this community doesn't like talking without voting? Well then I will vote.

Vote: VoD

You should do what you think is right... not what other people want you to do.

[Pink Puppy]

That said I agree with Pink Puppy. I want VoD to claim.

why exactly? you said this when he had three votes on him, and yours wasn't. seems suspicious.

I am torn between voting for VoD or voting for darkdude.

You reminded me of something. Darkdude says he agrees with me that VoD should claim. Except I never said that. He was at 3 votes at the time and that is not the time to claim. I was still discussing things. People shouldn't claim until they're closer to lynch... when most of the town wants a claim.

[Pink Puppy]

VoD...I don't think I am "trying to have it both ways" as you have said. In my first post today where I voted you I said I was most suspicious of you because you said you didn't read all of his posts and seemed to be taking your vote too jokey... being too amused. That was the my main points and I feel they still stand whether or not you were hammering. That's why I told you I don't care whether you were hammering or not (although hammering does draw more attention to it).

This is my first post today:

vote: thevampireofdusseldorf

for putting the hammer on although

Mozsugs, I dont feel like reading through all your recent posts just yet, I may go back to look over them for amusment at some stage.

I think you should read all of a person's posts before putting the hammer on!

And saying he might read M's posts sometime for amusement... sounds like he's having too much fun here. I would expect VoD to atleast be a little nervous about hammering. It just seems like he can't contain his excitement.

And you are certainly right... I do assume that you knew you were hammering and I have continued to do so. Maybe that isn't fair to you. But I just can't see any way that it makes sense that you DID NOT KNOW. I try to see it from your point of view, and it just makes so much more sense to me that you knew. And I don't like the argument that I must be scum if I don't just "give you the benefit of the doubt."

But I do think it really sucks for both of us if you really did just make a mistake and not realize how many votes were on Mozsuggs, and just tried to be funny at an inopportune time. I mean if that's true, it's basically my worst case scenario that I think is low on my scale of probability.

I also agree that we can't just rehash this a million times. We've said how we both feel.

I also think I can look for scum in other places today. There is nothing to be lost by that. If you really are scum, hopefully you will incriminate yourself further. If you're not, I am happy to have my mind changed. But it's probably not going to happen by going over this issue.

[Pink Puppy]

PP one last question about all this: your two main points the joke nature and the sentance about not reading all of mozs post how exactly do you see these two points don't make sense in the context of a L-1 vote and make more sense in a Hammer vote?

It's not that the points make more sense if you were hammering. I think the points stand either way. I just am having a hard time believing that you didn't know you were hammering since there was a lot of voting that day and a vote count on the last page. What does not make sense to me is that you didn't know what you were doing.

I concede that it's possible. I just know in that situation that I would have tried to find out how many votes were on somebody before voting them.

I am going to try to to look at other people though. I don't want to be blinded by this one disagreement.

[Pink Puppy]

I think VoD should claim to at least give us something to work on.

Well, everyone knows how I feel about VoD, but I don't think it's a good idea to push anyone to a claim unless more people agree.

And I don't think claims really help THAT much. Unless they keep you from lynching a PR, and then they might die that night, so in the long run it doesn't help that much.

I'd much rather debate the issue (although I think with VoD I can't talk about it anymore without repeating myself), debate other issues, and arrive at a conclusion not based so much on a claim.

Insistence on a claim is pretty weird to me... as I think it helps mafia more than town. At least at this early stage. Am I wrong? Anyone that knows more about the prevailing wisdom... feel free to school me.

I also think how darkdude didn't vote VoD, and then did it after viking called him out, was weird (I posted on it in post 301). I don't like when people support a bandwagon without voting, but somehow find it scummier when they give into pressure to vote later. Like they only vote because they got caught. And I want people to think for themselves, even if it disagrees with me. I don't like it when they're like "oh, okay I'll do what you want." Like... WHY?

unvote; vote darkdude

[Pink Puppy]

And I want people to think for themselves, even if it disagrees with me.

Well now if I change my mind and follow your advice I'll be more scummy right?

lol.

I'm not trying to make it a catch-22 for you. I just thought it was weird how you listened to viking to vote. I see some possibilities that are scummy: either you were afraid to vote before and then thought it was safe to do so. Or else you felt bullied by viking and just gave into him to satisfy him. Either way it's weird to me.

[Pink Puppy]

Talitha has been low-volume so far, but when she does say things, they make sense to me.

[Pink Puppy]

Well it has occured to me that scum can play this put town power role tells in their post if they are setting them selves up for a possible claim, I see that as more likely that a town power role putting them in, also yes talithas lack of decent sized posts does bother me but some of us do have busy lives so I 'm not saying this is suspicious yet.....but if it is an ongoing thing then is very noteworthy, and zeddicus has also been very quiet this game just went back and noted the most activity he has done was on the day moz was lynched......

Now would be a good time to stop talking about power roles. As cephrir said, hints to a person's role are either unintentional or mafia setting up a claim for later. But the more you talk about it makes me uneasy.

Your point about zeddicus is good. The thing that is interesting about him is how he has sort of stopped playing the game since being bandwagoned. He isn't trying to find scum anymore. He's just playing victim. And I have to admit, VoD, you did not do that when you were under pressure.

[Pink Puppy]

I dont think I uderstand the bit about him not playing since being bandwagoned, I don't think he has been bandwagoned this game. And I dont get your bit about playing the victim either zeddicus has made one post day two and basicly agreed with different peoples points and said was torn between voting me and dd (the two most suspicious people). The post above post needs some clarification.

The thing I was interested in while being under suspcion was that I had become suspicious of my accusors. Now this I'm sure is natural if you are town and find you accusors arguments and constant pressure rather wierd behaviour or in my case I felt the attention that was being paid to me was too much and the "evidence" of my scumminess was rather light, then how do you try and hunt scum in that person without it apearing as an OMGUS kinda thing.

Since people have started voting him, DD has said that he will look scummy now no matter what he does. Like he just can't win. Sort of defeatist attitude, emotional pleas. If you still don't understand, I can go back and quote for you.

To me, that's not playing. You have to keep trying to find out who scum are, even when you are under attack. Personally that is usually more convincing to me than a defense for a certain action. If someone under fire can make good arguments (for their innocence) BUT more importantly why someone else is scum, I'm more inclined to believe that they might be innocent (I know ppl can buss, but that's not the first thing I look for or worry about. I think bussing is less common than some ppl think).

And it doesn't have to be OMGUS. You can suspect people that don't currently suspect you. I know it's easy to think that people voting you must be scum just because you don't agree with them. I don't put too much stock in that because it's a natural reaction and not totally indicative of anything real. Unless there is some really good reasoning.

[Pink Puppy]

Rest assured I'm keeping tabs on this game. If scumtells continue to hide I'll probably contemplate a switch to the offensive.

This is a weird post.

[Pink Puppy]

@Pink Puppy: I will look stupid, but what is bussing, exactly? I'm an idiot and unfamiliar with the phrase.

Bussing = getting your scum partner lynched to make yourself look protown.

[Pink Puppy]

Well I've been trying to read this whole exchange closely, and am surprised to find I am actually in agreement with darkdude.

unvote darkdude

Yay, finally I feel as if I'm onto something!

Um, where did I repeat myself? Apart from directing the same question to 3 different players who were all voting or threatening to vote for someone who is not here.... I don't get it. Back up your assertions please, Darkdude.

You asked me to clarify on something, which is perfectly fine, then made a second post to address VoD, AND THEN used a third post to say "ya that's what I wrote so please answer".

I don't really think this is scummy, but it was just plain weird. And with QF's reaction things are getting weirder...

This first part is not a big deal to me... I don't support this.

Next:

@darkdude: What is a paradox? (Don't be cheeky and define paradox.) The only thing I am defending Talitha in is that she has a busy life and you and VoD were being harsh.

I named your case the paradox, but by definition it was more of a simple contradiction.

the only way we can figure anything out is by looking way too much into everything (including votes).

Darkdude, VoD, why are you guys being so damn hard on Talitha?

You say it is good to look into everything, then go on immediately to contradict yourself saying we shouldn't suspect (I myself was not really suspecting at the moment) because it is mean. First of all, I see ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of either me or VoD being mean to Talitha. I based my questioning on an obvious abnormality, and wasn't even suspicious of scummy actions. Plus I think I was quite polite. I've seen many questions on less evidence, and I am 100% sure you have too. So this really makes no sense and seems like scum logic. VoD (read his later posts) is right; I feel you're for some reason really protective of her.

I actually really agree with this.

QF, I have tried looking into your posts. Where have you pointed out the "meanness"? I don't see it personally. Can you at least show us what you thought was mean?

I don't see the meanness myself, but I don't expect everyone to think the same as I do, or have the same emotions at the exact same time. If QF thought she saw meanness... okay, I can accept that. But I think it is a little weird that she has not been able to point to any exact "mean" quotes. She's just dancing around the issue.

Okay, I'm going to address this finitely and I don't want to come back to this any more. You guys were not being very understanding of Talitha's personal life and that bothered me. That's what was mean. You can't expect a person to put mafia above all else. Now can we drop this?

How were they supposed to be more understanding when they didn't know about Talitha's busy life, and it's something you can't prove anyway?

And the fact that nobody even voted Talitha is quite important. VoD, DD and viking (i think) did comment that they were afraid Talitha was lurking. Personally, I was not worried about Talitha, but I was also not worried about other suspecting her of lurking. She can make the whole issue go away if she posts good content, which she has. I don't understand why QF was so upset by it. But what I really object to is that she can't point to any proof to back up her feelings.

[Pink Puppy]

unvote

Hate to keep switching sides, but darkdude has a point: it was VoD and not him who was being hard on Talitha in any way, IMO... Realizing this has made his reaction more reasonable.

And I am not liking your contributions lately, WK.

[Pink Puppy]

Mean:

Talitha well that isn't exactly what I had hoped for but at least it is something, I have already outlined my thoughts on zed day one and today If you fail to find them I am not going to provide them just for you.

It's basically saying "your analysis sucks" and "stop being lazy rawr." And then he actually said "Roar." in the same post.

Okay I can see that. You are reading into it a little more than what is written, but I see how that comment could be taken that way.

[Pink Puppy]

FYI everyone, zeddicus is also absent from another game i am in.

[Pink Puppy]

FYI everyone, zeddicus is also absent from another game i am in.

zeddicus- Isolating his posts has made me realize that I've been seriously overlooking zeddicus. I think he just... faded into the background for me, somehow. He's actually pretty light on content, and has a tendency to just show up and quote a bunch of things, agree with or critisize them, then drop off the face of the earth again. It sort of allowed him to get away with little content IMO. His only real input was critisism of mozsuggs, which was the popular thing to do at the time (don't take me wrong, I'm not critisizing that wagon, he just seems to go along with others often is what I mean) Followed PP on VoD a bit today (but not with a vote), but so did some others. Definitely rising on the scum-o-meter.
... [snip]...
vote zeddicus

Cephrir... did you not read my post saying that Zeddicus is absent from another game I am in (Roach Mini if you want to check)? Most of your argument falls apart if you consider that zeddicus hasn't been around to post more content and will need replacement.

RE: ranking...

it is a little bit dumb to rank players from least scummy to most scummy. It's like posting a big sign for who the scum should kill for the easiest suspicion spread.

I agree, but MANY players do it, so I don't know if it's really a tell.

I guess. But it does help youu to organize your thoughts (it certainly helped me, at least), and if everyone does it then it forces the scum to come up with some concrete fake suspicions so that later they can't just mislynch/bus whomever is convenient later on.

I think you are not taking into account that townies can change their mind according to how play develops and what others do, and maybe just time it takes to notice something. Usually a person's mental scum list is always changing, and anyone who tries to convict another based on a change in their scum list is pretty scummy, IMO.

And I think your vote on zeddicus is really weak, especially since I already posted that zeddicus seems to have disappeared from the site.

vote cephrir

[Pink Puppy]

zeddicus- Isolating his posts has made me realize that I've been seriously overlooking zeddicus. I think he just... faded into the background for me, somehow. He's actually pretty light on content, and has a tendency to just show up and quote a bunch of things, agree with or critisize them, then drop off the face of the earth again. It sort of allowed him to get away with little content IMO. His only real input was critisism of mozsuggs, which was the popular thing to do at the time (don't take me wrong, I'm not critisizing that wagon, he just seems to go along with others often is what I mean) Followed PP on VoD a bit today (but not with a vote), but so did some others. Definitely rising on the scum-o-meter.
... [snip]...
vote zeddicus

Cephrir... did you not read my post saying that Zeddicus is absent from another game I am in (Roach Mini if you want to check)? Most of your argument falls apart if you consider that zeddicus hasn't been around to post more content and will need replacement.

I absolutely did read that, and I definitely don't agree that my argument falls apart based on that. I reviewed his posts in isolation. I didn't consider dates really, and my entire case was based on what he actually had posted.

While he was around

, he was low on content, and even on Day 1 when he was here I totally overlooked him. Look at the way he posts. All he does is quote something, type a line, move on. He wasn't playing proactively, just responding to what others said. The vote on moz is the only post where he didn't do that outside of the random voting stage.

I still don't see your arguments. I viewed his posts in isolation too to try to see it your way. I do agree that his posting style is very different that some players in this game. He did quote stuff, post a line of his feelings on it, then move on. I don't think that's bad though. Concise? Yes. Scummy? I dunno. Maybe you can explain this further if you still disagree.

And the "not proactive" argument. In certain cases, I agree that somebody who acts ONLY reactively, and does not contribute original content ideas, or lead any voting, IS scummy. But I don't think that is what zeddicus did.

The argument that someone is "reactive" and therefore must be scum, does not fly with me -- it must be combined with other factors for me to care. The whole game is reacting to what people say.

I will go so far as to say people who use "he's overdefensive" or "he's reactive" as a argument, are probably scum. This is because it is such a gray area -- where does defending yourself become overdefensive? Where does reacting to other people's scummy actions become reactive? And it is much to easy for scum to accuse someone of this, and when they try to defend themselves, the scum can say "see? You're being reactive again! You're soo overdefensive!"

Cephrir, you have used both "overdefensive" (regarding windkirby) and "reactive" as arguments in this game. Do you still think they are viable arguments?

Maybe it's just that me and Cephrir think differently. But his type of arguments seem like scum arguments to me. In all fairness, I have seen many people trying to use the "defensive ZOMG!" argument. But I just think it's total crap every time.

[Pink Puppy]

Oh and I am going to be VLA for Friday and Saturday... back on Sunday.

[Pink Puppy]

PP:

I will go so far as to say people who use "he's overdefensive" or "he's reactive" as a argument, are probably scum. This is because it is such a gray area -- where does defending yourself become overdefensive? Where does reacting to other people's scummy actions become reactive?

Both overdefensive and reactive can be suspicious, if either is used in a situation where a protown wouldn’t. The key is context. Don’t lose it.

I guess I have just seen these arguments overused, and seen them used in such a way that any response to them is seen as more scummy. It becomes a catch-22 for anyone accused of it. I've just seen a town go wrong a lot lately when they follow this kind of argument.

I will admit that in certain situations "defensiveness" can mean something when combined with other scummy things. But on it's own as an argument, I think it's bad. I guess this is the "context" you refer too. But I still am suspicious of people who rely on this argument too much, or set up other people so that any response they make is automatically more scummy.

[Pink Puppy]

PP- why are you still voting for me?

I still think you're scum...


Can you explain to me why you liked aggressive play on D1 and then asked me why I was being so aggressive on D2?

Yeah, so I'm being a little aggressive. Get over it. I really don't care what you think of my tone, feel free to stop telling me you think I sound patronizing. Disregarding peooples' arguments because their tone is offensive to you is not going to get you anywhere besides lynched.

Pink Puppy, you're pursuing this very hard and not really giving VoD the benefit of the doubt at all. I do see what you mean with some of your points, but I can't tell exactly how serious you are about this from your posts. So here's a question: Based on the evidence we have and that you are talking about, do you want us run VoD up to a claim right now? Or do you simply think he's the most suspicious and want to have your vote somewhere, like wk does?

Seems like it's fine for you to ba aggressive, but not for other people to be. I also think you were a lot more forceful in all your posts D1 and less in D2. What happened?

[Pink Puppy]

Also, you appear to skirt around questions fairly heftily. Care to explain this tendency? I don't feel this is particularly helpful for town and I'm not entirely sure why you do this.

I don't know. This part about idling around was written when I just felt like speaking my mind, and it was something I noticed. I never intended for it to be a real help or anything.

Maybe you should try helping?

unvote; vote darkdude

[Pink Puppy]

@EmpTyger: If it seems as though Cephrir and I are buddying up, why are you suspicious of Cephrir and not of me? It's fairly obvious why darkdude.

I know this is totally not directed at me, but I feel like answering this one for myself.

Even though I have disagreed with you at times (like when I was voting you) throughout this game QF, I feel your behavior has been pretty much the same. Cephrir was much more aggressive D1, had a big part in the mozsuggs lynch, and now is playing much "safer."

I keep thinking about the post where he said "I don't know who to suspect now, everyone looks town." That kind of post always sets off my scumdar. When people "don't know what to do!!!!!1111" For a variety of reasons, I don't like this argument.
1)None of us really know what to do... we're just pushing people to try to figure it out. So... why even say this? It's like you're trying to act town wihtout helping.
2)This argument is convenient for scum because: It's hard to manufacture reasoning as scum! Scum know they're lying and thats hard for most people. Scum are afraid to be caught, and they know the more info they give, the more chance of them contradicting htemselves because its all lies anyway.
3)Scum want to pass through without making themselves a huge prescence in the town. The don't want to be blamed too much when town mislynches.

So I think the "I'm confused and don't know what to do post" is scummy. And scum revert to this frequently.

I continue to find darkdude and cephrir to be scummiest.

[Pink Puppy]

Cephrir...I totally disagree with you.

This is getting obnoxious. When I responded to your case the second time (my 491) you ignored it and kept saying you thought I was scum. Stop twisting my words and making up scummy things I've done.

I didn't ignore your case. I just don't buy your excuses. I can't just keep saying the same thing over and over again, so I didn't respond to you after 491. I am entitled to still think you are scum. You are entitled to disagree with me, but don't say I am twisting your words, or making things up.

[Pink Puppy]

Dude... why do I have to buy your excuse? And an excuse doesn't make your behavior any less scummy.

You asked people to explain why they suspect you. I am the only one to do so. And I am the only one you vote. Don't you think it's scummier to say you suspect someone and give no reasons?

[Pink Puppy]

It's not an excuse, it's the truth. If you're going to make a case against me, you can't expect to completely ignore my response. If someone is accusing you, and you defend against their accusations, do you think it is reasonable to go on voting them with no more reason than "I don't buy your defense"? If ou still suspect me, give me some freaking reasons. I explained why my "scummy behavior" is not scummy. Example: You claimed that I was suspicious for not being suspicious of anyone for a short while, because "scum don't want to get caught in a lie". This theory makes no sense considering that I reread and came up with suspects 5 posts later. Therefore, why is it still suspicious?

Because you still said it. And about your whole LoS. I don't think that's such a pro-town thing to do when you also say that mafia wouldn't do it because it causes them to get caught later. Maybe if someone else had brought it up. But the fact that yo usaid it makes it look to me like that is why you did it -- to look pro-town.

Seriously, it's sooooo obvious that you've realized I'm right and you can't beat my defense, so you've decided to continue to claim I'm scum with no reasons.

Why on Earth would I keep voting you if I realize you're right?? When I think you are right, I will stop suspecting you. And you are totally FULL OF IT, when you say I keep suspecting you with no reasons. I am the only one who keeps posting reasons.

You can disagree with me... that is not scummy. But to say I have no reasons -- that is scummy.

[Pink Puppy]

I really don't think I am ignoring your posts or persisting in an idea that is ludicrous. If I am, that is not my intent. I am trying to be honest how I feel about you and provide you with reasons and responses.

I will try to go back and answer you more directly about certain issues if that will help.

I just wonder if anyone else thinks I am being unreasonable with you.

[Pink Puppy]

Cephrir... I will do what you ask, but it is tedious and stupid. And I resent you saying I ignored all your posts. Just because I did not quote every part of it or comment on your every sentence does not mean I "ignored it."

I still don't see your arguments. I viewed his posts in isolation too to try to see it your way. I do agree that his posting style is very different that some players in this game. He did quote stuff, post a line of his feelings on it, then move on. I don't think that's bad though. Concise? Yes. Scummy? I dunno. Maybe you can explain this further if you still disagree.

But concise is not helpful if he's not really saying or contributing anything.

You say he wasn't contributing or saying anything. I think he was, but in a concise way. To me, he was contributing. It was just in a different style.

And the "not proactive" argument. In certain cases, I agree that somebody who acts ONLY reactively, and does not contribute original content ideas, or lead any voting, IS scummy. But I don't think that is what zeddicus did.

Well, it is what zeddicus did. He didn't really say much, he just used others' reasons, and didn't lead anything. Go ahead, find me a place where zeddicus "led voting". It doesn't exist.

Try post 14 where he calls out windkirby for having a double standard. QF votes him later, and so do you. You might not have had the same reasons as him, but you were all voting WK at the same time, putting pressure on him. And he voted WK first. He also questions Akonas, Talitha, darkdude and Mozsuggs.

The argument that someone is "reactive" and therefore must be scum, does not fly with me -- it must be combined with other factors for me to care. The whole game is reacting to what people say.

It's not that he was reactive, but he was

not proactive

-- you can be reactive

and

proactive, which is what you need to be in order to accomplish anything in this game. And if you don't think it's enough of a scumtell for you to care, good for you. I disagree. If you never really add anything to the game... it's just so easy for scum to slip under everyone's radar like that, and I feel like that's exactly what he did.

I disagree that he was not proactive. See last comment.

That said, I am going to back off on EmpTyger for a while. I overreacted a bit to my discovery that zeddicus wasn't contributing enough and put him higher than he should have been on my scumlist, I guess I was just excited about having found something. I also want to give him a chance to prove himself, being a replacement, and his first post is a step in the right direction. If he's acting scummy later, I'll be extra suspicious because of zeddicus' actions, but for now I'll give him a mostly clean slate. He's now below Akonas and darkdude.

Unvote

.

will go so far as to say people who use "he's overdefensive" or "he's reactive" as a argument, are probably scum. This is because it is such a gray area -- where does defending yourself become overdefensive? Where does reacting to other people's scummy actions become reactive? And it is much to easy for scum to accuse someone of this, and when they try to defend themselves, the scum can say "see? You're being reactive again! You're soo overdefensive!"

Cephrir, you have used both "overdefensive" (regarding windkirby) and "reactive" as arguments in this game. Do you still think they are viable arguments?

I have to address the two parts of this argument seperately. You keep using the word reactive, but that's not the problem. The problem was "not proactive", and there is a significant difference. And when someone responds to a case against them, that's when reactive is good. You're saying this argument is one scum would make based on things you think scum could do with said arguments but that I haven't done. Putting words in my mouth again.

Your argument actually does apply to overdefensiveness, though. I've realized in the interim that overdefensiveness is a sucky scumtell, and no, I don't think that argument holds any water anymore. You'll notice from my list I'm no longer suspicious of wk, and I haven't been for a while; that's why.

I think there is a problem with this whole exchange. I don't think zeddicus was "not proactive" and I think for you to phrase it that way makes it impossible for him to defend himself without you being like "that's not proactive. you're just responding to what I said." That's what I find scummy, that you are setting him up for failure based on something I don't even think he did.

[Pink Puppy]

I still think you're scum...

Okay.... why?

That quote you took from me on D2 wasn't criticizing you for being aggressive. I wasn't being sarcastic, I actually couldn't tell how aggressive you were trying to be and wanted to know.

I toned it down a bit on D2 because, well, D1 is D1. On D1, you sometimes need to be aggressive to get reactions out of people and/or to get things to actually happen. I also am not as sure about my suspects right now as I was about moz.

I still think you're scum for all the reasons I have written. You can sort posts by Pink Puppy for the answer.

The quote from D2 may not have been a criticism but it looked like one.

I disagree that you have to be agressive on D1 and not on other days.

[Pink Puppy]

Even though I have disagreed with you at times (like when I was voting you) throughout this game QF, I feel your behavior has been pretty much the same. Cephrir was much more aggressive D1, had a big part in the mozsuggs lynch, and now is playing much "safer."

I toned it down a bit on D2 because, well, D1 is D1. On D1, you sometimes need to be aggressive to get reactions out of people and/or to get things to actually happen. I also am not as sure about my suspects right now as I was about moz.

Is that not good enough for you or did you not see it?

I see a change in your play and I think it is scummy. I don't see any reason to stop playing aggressively because it isn't D1 anymore.

I keep thinking about the post where he said "I don't know who to suspect now, everyone looks town." That kind of post always sets off my scumdar. When people "don't know what to do!!!!!1111" For a variety of reasons, I don't like this argument.
1)None of us really know what to do... we're just pushing people to try to figure it out. So... why even say this? It's like you're trying to act town wihtout helping.

Not like that! Sheesh. Of course none of us know for sure, unless we're cops with a guilty; I obviously meant that I didn't know who to vote for. You'll notice that 2 pages later, I came up with a scumlist and voted based on it. If I was acting like I didn't know who to vote for for a substantial amount of time, I could understand your suspicion. But that wasn't the case. Also, you refer to my not knowing what to do as an "argument"; it wasn't. I just needed to reread, and I did, problem solved.

Haven't I already answered this?? I think people expressing the feeling that they "don't know what to do" is scummy. Sorry if you meant it otherwise, but that's the way it sounds to me. I have just seen scum do it before.

2)This argument is convenient for scum because: It's hard to manufacture reasoning as scum! Scum know they're lying and thats hard for most people. Scum are afraid to be caught, and they know the more info they give, the more chance of them contradicting htemselves because its all lies anyway.

I made an LoS two pages later. I wasn't sure for a little bit, reread the thread and then voted. You're making this into something it's not at all.

Why does the amount of time between your scummy post and your next post make any difference? Because you tried to correct yourself I should forget?

3)Scum want to pass through without making themselves a huge prescence in the town. The don't want to be blamed too much when town mislynches.

Right! That's why I've been one of the more posty players in this game! That's why I was aggressive on D1! Because I didn't want to get noticed! Wait, that doesn't make sense.

You were agressive D1 but not today, and the quote and behavior I am commentin on is from today. So don't make it like I am referring to D1. I am not.

This is getting obnoxious. When I responded to your case the second time (my 491) you ignored it and kept saying you thought I was scum. Stop twisting my words and making up scummy things I've done.

What is obnoxious is that you claim I have no reasons if you disagree with mine, and say I "ignore" your posts if I don't quote and respond to every sentence that you write. That is a ridiculous standard to hold anyone to. I have commented on your arguments and sometimes quoted what I thought were the most important parts, or areas I thought should be clarified or discussed further. Now I have tried to go into greater detail if that's what you want.

[Pink Puppy]

I really dislike playing like this... getting into quote wars. And arguing semantics. I really hate arguing the difference between saying someone is "not proactive" vs. "Being reactive is bad." Hate it. I think it distracts from anything useful.

I am hearing you Cephrir that you want me to repost my suspiciouns of you and if any have changed based on things you've said or not. This is fair. I can do that, but I'm not doing it tonight. I'm tired and honestly a little annoyed with you. I feel that long posts like this are annoying for anyone else to read. Heck, they are annoying for me to read.

[Pink Puppy]

Cephrir, I always thought your vote on zeddicus was weak and unfounded, not to mention opportunistic since you voted him when he clearly needed to be replaced. Not that you can't ever vote a player you feel is scummy who needs replacement... but after zeddicus did get replaced, you unvoted his replacement. What is the point of voting someone who needs replacement if you're just going to back off?

Please explain.

Here are some quotes:

zeddicus- Isolating his posts has made me realize that I've been seriously overlooking zeddicus. I think he just... faded into the background for me, somehow. He's actually pretty light on content, and has a tendency to just show up and quote a bunch of things, agree with or critisize them, then drop off the face of the earth again. It sort of allowed him to get away with little content IMO. His only real input was critisism of mozsuggs, which was the popular thing to do at the time (don't take me wrong, I'm not critisizing that wagon, he just seems to go along with others often is what I mean) Followed PP on VoD a bit today (but not with a vote), but so did some others. Definitely rising on the scum-o-meter.
... [snip]...
vote zeddicus

Cephrir... did you not read my post saying that Zeddicus is absent from another game I am in (Roach Mini if you want to check)? Most of your argument falls apart if you consider that zeddicus hasn't been around to post more content and will need replacement.

I absolutely did read that, and I definitely don't agree that my argument falls apart based on that. I reviewed his posts in isolation. I didn't consider dates really, and my entire case was based on what he actually had posted.

While he was around

, he was low on content, and even on Day 1 when he was here I totally overlooked him. Look at the way he posts. All he does is quote something, type a line, move on. He wasn't playing proactively, just responding to what others said. The vote on moz is the only post where he didn't do that outside of the random voting stage.

That said, I am going to back off on EmpTyger for a while. I overreacted a bit to my discovery that zeddicus wasn't contributing enough and put him higher than he should have been on my scumlist, I guess I was just excited about having found something. I also want to give him a chance to prove himself, being a replacement, and his first post is a step in the right direction. If he's acting scummy later, I'll be extra suspicious because of zeddicus' actions, but for now I'll give him a mostly clean slate. He's now below Akonas and darkdude. Unvote.

And you ADMIT that you ovverreacted to zeddicus and made a mistake. I am the one who pointed this out to you. You first say that you are right and I am wrong, and then say you overreacted about zeddicus. I don't see how both these things can be true.

It looks more to me that you realized your vote was weak, couldn't defend it to me, and backed off to make it go away.

[Pink Puppy]

Cephrir, I always thought your vote on zeddicus was weak and unfounded, not to mention opportunistic since you voted him when he clearly needed to be replaced. Not that you can't ever vote a player you feel is scummy who needs replacement... but after zeddicus did get replaced, you unvoted his replacement. What is the point of voting someone who needs replacement if you're just going to back off?

My vote on him and the replacement were not correlated. When I isolated everyone's posts, as I'm fairly certain I've already explained, I had a "holy crap how did I miss that?" reaction and overreacted. I back off Emp because I'm giving Emp a chance to prove himself, and I still think zeddicus' actions were suspicious. I think it's a good policy to lay off on replacements for a bit while they get up to speed, and he's still in the upper ranges of my scumlist. Just because I'm dealing with obvious scum for a little while doesn't mean my suspicions on Emp, dd and Akonas have evaporated.

When you first voted Zeddicus, I asked you if you had seen my post stating zeddicus was also absent from another of my games and needed replacement. You said you had seen my post and didn't care. Scummy play is scummy play, etc. If that is the way you play, I would not expect you to unvote the player who replaces in, because afterall they have the same allignment.

And you ADMIT that you ovverreacted to zeddicus and made a mistake. I am the one who pointed this out to you. You first say that you are right and I am wrong, and then say you overreacted about zeddicus. I don't see how both these things can be true.

It looks more to me that you realized your vote was weak, couldn't defend it to me, and backed off to make it go away.

Or, I realized my vote was weak, and backed off because I realized this; not being able to defend it to you has nothing to do with it seeing I don't care what you think at this point. You're looking actions that could easily be made by a protown player and finding reasons why scum could do the same thing. If, by some stretch of the imagination, you are town, you are viewing this thread and my posts through a "Cephrir is scum" lens. Kindly remove it and try to see how I might say the same things I am saying as town.

It's true that in a way I am looking at your posts from the POV that you are scum, but that's only because I was suspicious of you after what I took to be an opportunistic vote on zeddicus. After that, yes, I will question everything you do that I find even a little bit scummy. You should not be worried about it if I am wrong. If your explanations are so compelling, nobody will agree with me. A majority of players need to think you're scum to be lynched, not just me.

I also find it funny that you were never suspicious of me until I started questioning your actions. Your vote on me is basically glorified OMGUS. And I'm not even voting you at present. You asked why people are suspicious of you, and I am the only one who told you in great detail, as I find you and DD most suspicious. You are really freaking out over the person who is dealing with you most fairly and directly.

[Pink Puppy]

When you first voted Zeddicus, I asked you if you had seen my post stating zeddicus was also absent from another of my games and needed replacement. You said you had seen my post and didn't care. Scummy play is scummy play, etc. If that is the way you play, I would not expect you to unvote the player who replaces in, because afterall they have the same allignment.

Well, I didn't do what you expected, then. Deal with it. It sucks replacing in with votes on you and I didn't want to make him do that.

Then why would you vote a player who needs replacing in the first place? If you are just planning to unvote them and give them a free pass later?

[Pink Puppy]

But I told you he needed replacement before and after you voted him.

So you knew.

[Pink Puppy]

I still think DD and Cephrir are scummiest, and would be willing to vote either. If you think my case is thin or wrong, please come up with someone who you think is scummy. It's a little frustrating to see a number of good players just sitting back and not even voting anyone with a deadline approaching. Leaving it until the last minute cannot help us.

[Pink Puppy]

QuantumFruit --

I realize Cephrir (and you) seem to have a different playstyle. A much more verbose, indirect style. I am trying to allow for that because I don't want to just suspect anyone who plays differently from me. BUT, the reason I do suspect it is because I think it can easily be manipulative. I like to be direct and concise, and I suspect people who aren't direct and concise, of hiding something. Not always, but it is something I watch out for. Dancing around the issue, answering it from the side, arguing about meanings of words... I am not a fan, and it makes me suspicious.

I am, however, not relying solely on style.

My point about Cephrir being aggressive D1 and then not on D2... yes, I do see a change in playstyle like that as scummy. I don't understand the reason for it. I THINK its because scum don't want too much pressure on them for the whole game -- eventually they'll get lynched for it. That may be just my opinion. Cephrir says he's aggressive D1 to get reactions, but not after. Actually, that would be an interesting thing to meta. I think that is a good idea. If I read games where he is aggressive D1 and not afterwards, then I would concede that he just plays that way, and it's not scummy. I will check on that.

I'm still happy voting DD. He's so apathetic. He defends himself by saying "Oh that comment wasn't meant to be helpful" and "I've just been sitting back and watching." That is a scum attitude.

[Pink Puppy]

Guess again. PP is *voting* darkdude. Do you have any other empty accusations to toss out?

Oh, give m a freaking break. She's been attacking me ovr it madly, and she might as well be voting me as she is clearly more sspicious of me than dd.

I am clearly having to defend myself multiple times for every little thing I say about you, that is why I have to keep posting about you. You are perpetuating this cycle.

One of the reasons I am not voting you is because I do realize we have very different styles, and some of it may be lost in translation.

So give me a freaking break.

[Pink Puppy]

As far as I see, you haven't done it yet.

I'm pretty sure I did already. But anyways:

Talitha made some weird post restating the same thing in three consecutive posts
I point out weird behaviour (weird, not necessarily scummy)
QF says I was being mean

Which of course made no sense at all. When I talked about it she was still under the impression that I was being mean and telling talitha to "drop everything and play mafia".

I assumed everyone remembered so I didn't rewrite this in the last posts.

Then why haven't you mentioned me at all?

I did, but that was prior to this case. You were inactive and only popped up when people suggested that you were lurking. Not as scummy as QF, so I put her as my main suspect.

As far as I can tell, QF can get emotional, and that's not really indicative of scum. Appealing to emotion is scummy, but having feelings and wanting people to "play nice" isn't that scummy. Defending another player can be buddying up to a townie. I could buy that. But it's not something you can definitively prove, and not really a good enough reason to lynch someone -- IMO. It would need to be combined with something else.

If you have continued to think QF is scum since way back when, why haven't you been questioning her more, or trying to pick on other things she's said? Just keeping your vote on someone doesn't amount to much pressure when there is so much else going on. Or why haven't you looked at other people? There has got to be more than one scum.

[Pink Puppy]

Wow. I don't like that post at all. You basically said how you can see everyone being scum or being town, and you're not sure yet on anybody. Which is useless fence-sitting. All you're doing is muddying the waters, and impeding progress towards a lynch, which is not helpful when we have a deadline. I've tried to have patience with you and your obviously different playstyle, but this is ridiculous. If we all played like you we'd no-lynch every day.

And I think you're being much meaner to DD than DD ever was to Talitha. You said you don't respect his intellect and that he is annoying. I really don't like that at all coming from a player I had decided was so protective of people's feelings. The fact that you said you know it's hypocritical, does not make it any better for me. Not being sympathetic about people's RL commitments < insults and name-calling.

The only person you feel particularly negative against is DD, although you say you think he's town! Thanks for showing up to insult another player, sit the fence on EVERYBODY, and NOT VOTE after a deadline is posted. This behavior is not pro-town. It confuses people who have to go through your post and try to figure out where you stand on things, and see that you stand in the middle of every issue, seeing all sides and committing to nothing.

unvote; vote QF

[Pink Puppy]

Akonas, I kept thinking QF was gonna get better. She said things like, "I can't tell this early in the game", "I don't feel strongly enough yet." So, I was trying to give her a chance to figure out how she feels, if what she needed was time or something. The circumstances of a deadline coming and it being d3, just really rubbed me the wrong way. I really don't like it when people don't vote in situations like this. It is pushing us towards a no-lynch, which is anti-town. And it's not really playing the game if you just sit in the middle and let everyone else do the work, and don't even help by voting.

Cephrir said something about how mafia would be voting at a time like this. I don't necessarily think so. I have seen mafia wait in some situations -- because they're not sure they can get on a certain wagon without looking suspicious, or because not voting will further confuse the town, or because they want to force the town to act very close to deadline (increasing town mistakes), or because they want to force a no-lynch. Not saying mafia never vote, just saying that there are circumstances when it definitely benefits mafia to act like QF is acting.

Akonas: as to why I am not voting Cephrir... QF jumped out at me much more. I couldn't let it go. I still harbor a lot of the same suspicions on Cephrir, but I am open to looking at other people, even if I still suspect him to some degree. Usually, the way I play is to keep voting someone until I see something more scummy, then stay on that until I see something else I think is more scummy. Also, I felt like I got about as much out of Cephrir as I could. He knows how I feel, I know how he feels. Unless something new happens, we've already talked about everything.

windkirby's vote on cephrir to "save" darkdude is a little weird. Seems like windkirby sympathizes with DD, both being newbies, so that's why he did it. But I don't think that's really a good reason. And the "cop" insinuation (which he later said he didn't mean), is weird too.

[Pink Puppy]

PP:
What do you think of the fact that darkdude and windkirby are the other 2 voting QF? For me at least, the list of those who are voting QF is making me relatively happy that I’m not…

I know what you mean, but scum can buss each other. It's not the first thing I look for, but I think when scum are under heat they will attack each other to either save themself or make the other look more pro-town when their allignment is revealed. So I'm not terribly worried even though the other people on the wagon with me are not the most pro-town-looking players.

If QF were to come back and vote someone with logic I either agreed with or atleast didn't think was totall BS, I would probably move my vote. As of now, she still hasn't voted anyone. I don't expect her to start being totally sure and shouting that someone is "SCUM SCUM SCUM." But I take not voting to the extent that she is, to be scummy as it is "not playing the game." Not scum hunting. Not helping. Not committing. I also think in situations like this that she is more likely to give herself away further if she is scum, when she starts voting and playing. I feel that pressure does that. So if I find her logic okay, I would move elsewhere.

[Pink Puppy]

With his latest no-lynch plan, I am happy to lynch DD. I don't really want to let QF off the hook so easily though, so I will hold off a little bit and see if she can vote somebody at all today.

[Pink Puppy]

Sorry... that was me

[Pink Puppy]

Both.

Although I didn't really run numbers on it or anything. I normally oppose no-lynch under all circumstances, unless it's engame and mislynch will lose the game, but another night would help. Or some similar situation. I don't really think this is one of those situations.

I just feel the town's only weapon is the lynch and I don't like to let it go.

[Pink Puppy]

So QF refuses to vote today. Interesting. Well, I'm glad she got a chance to post. I wouldn't have wanted to go to night with her being able to say "I would have voted if you had given me more time!" Now she's on the record as being too unsure after 30 pages to be able to place a vote.

I am glad her and Akonas have answered my questions about why they don't suspect each other. I think it can be hard to suspect someone you know well IRL, but I want to make sure they're both being objective.

I'm ready to end the day and hammer darkdude, but I guess Cephrir may still be able to post something about Akonas, so I will wait a little.

[Pink Puppy]

So QF and Cephrir come up with nothing new before deadline. Good to know.

@windkirby... if you can't see why DD is scummy then I don't know how I can show you. There has been a lot of posting about him, so just go read that.

unvote; vote darkdude

[Pink Puppy]

I would bet that Emptyger was a backup who became doctor upon yvonne seer's death, right? Otherwise, yes, I've never seen two docs in a mini.

I am most suspicious of QF and VoD. Both didn't vote at all yesterday, which really bothers me. WK actively tried to get us to reconsider DD, but QF and Vod just sat back, didn't vote for anyone, and let the lynch go through.

I am not sure about the Akonas-Cephrir relationship that EmpTyger put forth. I never really saw it. The fact that Cephrir was suspicious of Akonas, could go either way. Cephrir could have been trying to push guilt on townie or he could have resorted to bussing (because I was pressuring him and he thought he might get lynched). But I don't know for sure. The only thing I see as damaging to Akonas is what QF put forth about Akonas being sort of big-brother/father-figure to DD, trying to help him play better. This is the sort of thing that you wait for engame to tell people. Because if you're town you don't know if someone is acting scummy because they are playing poorly, or because they are scum. And you don't want to give scum hints how to play better, so you don't give hints.

Anyway, Akonas is secondary to me right now. I see QF and VoD as bigger problems. Actually, VoD probably moreso because he floated the idea that scum didn't have to work hard to get mozsuggs lynched D1. This sort of squashed any attention that might have landed on Cephrir for the way he pushed mozsuggs lynch.

Trying to find mafia in mozsuggs death is like trying to find sense in mozsuggs (short) life. I do believe that the mafia wouldn't have had to work hard for a lynch on moz, so they could have sat back and watched, but also given the nature of moz gameplay it would have been just as easy/safe to jump in on a lynch on him.

vote VoD

[Pink Puppy]

Well if voting who you think is scummy is overaggressive, then I guess I am.

What's wrong with voting directly after the night scene? You're who I am most suspicious of right now, so yeah, I'm going to vote you. I also want to discuss it more. I don't advocate lynching anyone right away. But voting right away is a good idea, I think.

Also, I didn't say I had a problem with you because you didn't vote DD, my problem is you weren't voting anyone. You weren't either committing to the DD wagon or presenting another POV and voting another person. You were just hanging out. That is detrimental to the town.

As for Cephrir, I'm the only one who really attacked him hardcore, so take from that what you will.

[Pink Puppy]

VoD... you don't explain why you are uneasy about vikingfan. Also, your vote puts him at L-1, since I am pretty sure Akonas's vote counts. I could be wrong, but he bolds a "vote vikinfan." There is at least the possibility that it counts. And for you to go vote vikingfan right after with no explanation other than you feel "uneasy" about him, is highly suspicious. Especially after you tried to make me seem all overagressive for voting you, this vote seems highly contradictory.

[Pink Puppy]

Now about PP: I am more on my way to formulating an acurate guess as to your alignment but further off about vikingfans. You I can count on posting on your own accord rather frequently to help this process but vikingfan I am a lot further off from having any accurate view. A vote in his direction will hopefuly be useful to me getting closer to his alignment.

It is awfully coincidental that your pressure vote on him to get him to talk coincides with a bandwagon on him.

As for viking fan it is a question of contribution as the game has gone on his input has grown less and less, as numbers get less chances of being noticed as scummy increase. I have a very uneasy feeling about all this and feel that viking has a night action that has led him to want to fly under the radar. I think L-2 is enough pressure to get something of content from vikingfan.

The way you phrase this is significant to me. You don't say "he's scum so he wants to fly under the radar." You say "I think he has a night action and so wants ot fly under the radar." Night actions are not inherently scummy. Have you thought about that?

Having a read through vikingfan the biggest thing that bothers me is his actions about dd. He never brings any real case of substance about re dd but instead makes a few minor points and uses everyone elses more convincing analysis about dd saying he agrees with all this to justify his vote.

That being said, I'm still entirely happy with darkdude and in fact will vote him, for all the reasons already mentioned, both by myself and others. Hanging back, making lame excuses, and so forth. vote darkdude

This I can see as typical fly low mafia tactics of let town do the case building and when things look good slip the vote in. Same sort of bahaviour by him in the moz lynch also has been noted.

These are legitimate points, I think. The fact that you had to be pressed for them is... not good.

[Pink Puppy]

WK... at the bottom of the page, you can display posts just by one person. Look at the bottom of the page, under preview and submit, and to the right. It will say "all users" now. Click on the drop down menu, select whoever you want, and then press "go."

You will get a chronological display of all posts by that user.

[Pink Puppy]

Yes I belive Vikingfan has a night action that might not be a mafia night action but certainly a killing role. As I didn't exactly wish to have to come out in the open and discuss this I tried to pressure him to ruffle his feathers so I can get a better idea about if it is anti town or pro town. My biggest reason for thinking this is this quote from day two.

I'm also not for forcing a claim at the moment. Though, there is this to be considered. Say we find through a claim that a vig is present. Then we can leave the vig alone and lynch somebody else. Then even if the mafia kill our vig (assuming he's telling the truth), the vig can still get a kill off and hopefully kill a mafia, assuming the mod arranges the kill in a proper way. If there is no duplicate kill, then we just lynch the vig. I'm not in favor of forcing any claim, but there are some that wouldn't absolutely kill the town.

Now this IMO shows that vikingfan is aware that there is a second killing role and that this will most likely be revealed after night 2 as doc was killed night one. Thus I believe that vikingfan was setting himself up for a future claim of vig through this post. The fact that we had two dos maybe both active maybe one back up makes it IMO very possible that vikingfan could be a sk. I realy dont know how to move closer to finding out this but through trying to pressure him. Thus my vote and bandwagon.

I've been thinking about this a lot. It's very interesting.

I originally really disliked how you didn't give all your reasons for voting viking, but now I see why you didn't. And I don't really understand why Akonas still thinks your reasons are complete BS after reading your last post. It at least made me think.

unvote

I think the best way to get closer to the truth is to go back through viking's posts and actions. I'll be going there soon...

[Pink Puppy]

It's hard to move forward without vikingfan, and to a lesser extent, QF. That's why I haven't posted. But I did forget to analyze viking's posts. I'm gonna do that see if I see anything I can ask him about...

[Pink Puppy]

Yes I belive Vikingfan has a night action that might not be a mafia night action but certainly a killing role. As I didn't exactly wish to have to come out in the open and discuss this I tried to pressure him to ruffle his feathers so I can get a better idea about if it is anti town or pro town. My biggest reason for thinking this is this quote from day two.

I'm also not for forcing a claim at the moment. Though, there is this to be considered. Say we find through a claim that a vig is present. Then we can leave the vig alone and lynch somebody else. Then even if the mafia kill our vig (assuming he's telling the truth), the vig can still get a kill off and hopefully kill a mafia, assuming the mod arranges the kill in a proper way. If there is no duplicate kill, then we just lynch the vig. I'm not in favor of forcing any claim, but there are some that wouldn't absolutely kill the town.

Now this IMO shows that vikingfan is aware that there is a second killing role and that this will most likely be revealed after night 2 as doc was killed night one. Thus I believe that vikingfan was setting himself up for a future claim of vig through this post. The fact that we had two dos maybe both active maybe one back up makes it IMO very possible that vikingfan could be a sk. I realy dont know how to move closer to finding out this but through trying to pressure him. Thus my vote and bandwagon.

Went back through viking's post and not seeing so much that jumps out as me. His lurking is sort of a worry, but it seems he has had real life issues that have prevented him from being more active. Something did occur to me about the above post.

Viking made that statement in regards to dardude claiming. Which suggests that he knew there was a second killing role in the game (presumably vig), and that he thought that role might be DD. If viking himself were a vig, he wouldn't think the vig is anyone but himself, and not worry about outing the vig through a claim.

In a way, it could be some sort of convouted breadcrumb, or SK setting up a vig claim, as VOD suggests. But I think it fails because it pretty much implies viking is LOOKING for the vig/SK and that he is not it.

Which implies mafia to me... because town would not know to look for a second killing role at that point.

I'm not sure I am thinking about this the right way. So anyone wants to chime in here, be my guest.

[Pink Puppy]

I have a problem with the suspicion that DD is throwing on WK. "Too townie" is not a really great scumtell, because it has a high probability of hitting someone who really is just townie. Plus, it gets really confusing if you lynch people for acting townie and you keep people for acting scummy (on the basis that scum wouldn't out themselves so obviously). I think it really cuts down on your ability to catch scum if you flip the criteria like that. It presents a convenient way for scum to act like scum and be considered town. Which is a badbad standard for a town to set.

Anyway... liking DD less than his previous incarnation.

Darkdude: Just to be clear, are you denying any extra knowledge about killing roles in this game?

Yes. There is no possibility of my role knowing that there were more than one killing party at the point when that statement was made.

I'm a little frustrated that we can't ask viking what he was thinking when he wrote that stuff expecting more kills.

[Pink Puppy]

I am still frustrated that we can't interrogate viking. I haven't posted that much because I was trying to decide if it was enough to lynch DD without getting any more clarification from viking.

But I think QF is scum.

Also, I don't necessarily think that logic must always take precedence over gut feelings. Often, something a player says really gets under your skin and you can't exactly pinpoint it, but it's true nonetheless. Scum can easily deceive other with logic - in fact, that's how a good scum plays it...it all makes sense! Anyway, I again have to disagree with you, darkdude - though, that gives me a better understanding as to why you think I'm scummy.

This is a pathetic excuse coming from somebody who has made a big deal all game about voting only when she is sure. Now she's playing on gut? And still not voting.

I'd much rather see QF go than WK, even if he did see (The former)DD as town when the rest of us couldn't. I just don't want to go lynching people for being right that someone is town. I mean, what do you think WK was trying to do? Buddy up to a dead guy? There's no payback for that if you're scum.

vote: QF

[Pink Puppy]

I don't see how spreading blame without voting is opportunistic; jumping on wagons is what I'd call opportunistic. Discussion is good, even without votes. And although I'd kind of like to vote for darkdude right now, I'm not going to because we may be rather close to LoL. (ha ha hah.)

STOP VOTING FOR QUANTUMFRUIT!!!!!. We don't want a lynch yet. and Serious FoS: darkdude. I'm about to vote you for going to Lynch-1 on an "enh" vote. Actually, Vote: darkdude. I've thought you were scum; you're only convincing me more. And it's only the second vote.

The day has already gone on for a month. It's not exactly like we are quicklynching anyone here.

If you want more discussion, then why aren't you posting more? This game day you have posted 8 times (two of which are today, IRL).

And in one of your posts, you FOS QF. So why are you so against QF lynch now?

AND... VoD put a third vote on someone (was it viking?) at the beginning of the day, but you didn't seem upset about that even though it was much earlier in the day. Double standard much? Perhaps that's because you wanted viking dead too?

[snip]
This is a pathetic excuse coming from somebody who has made a big deal all game about voting only when she is sure. Now she's playing on gut? And still not voting.

Two problems here:

1. You're discounting gut, which is one of the most important things in the game; indeed, being "sure" comes from gut feelings more often than not.

Actually, I am not discounting gut. I am saying I don't think it makes sense with the rest of her play here. She has insisted about being "sure" about people, and not wanting to make hasty decisions. For someone who wants to be careful, it seems ridiculous to suddenly start relying on gut.

[*]You're encouraging QF to vote. This seems like bad play on your part. We're close to LoL, if not in it already. And you're encouraging getting to lynching rather than discussion who we think is scum?

Guess what? Voting =/= not discussing.

Voting can help discussion. And nothing has been happening. So if voting will get people to actually pay more attention to this game, or get their interest back, then yeah, I think voting is the way to go.

I said it would be good of QF to vote. I didn't say we should lynch someone right now, or that we should stop discussion. So don't pretend that I did.

[/list]You're starting to look like scum to me.

I'd much rather see QF go than WK, even if he did see (The former)DD as town when the rest of us couldn't. I just don't want to go lynching people for being right that someone is town. I mean, what do you think WK was trying to do? Buddy up to a dead guy? There's no payback for that if you're scum.

vote: QF

Sorry? I didn't quite get this; could you explain it better?

I find QF much scummier than WK. The main case against WK is that he didn't want to lynch darkdude yesterday. Sort of like he knew DD was town. Which implies he's scum trying to look like town. I was saying how I don't really buy that line of thinking. I don't want to lynch people because they look too townie.

[Pink Puppy]

Damn alts.

[Pink Puppy]

Also (and this is crap reasoning but that's how my mind works sometimes) if my bf was playing in this game and I was scum, I totally would have killed him by now, kinda like how I killed mith at thespival because he was sitting too close to me on the couch.

Hmmm.

I actually have to say, I would do the same -- kill my BF ASAP if I was scum and he was not.

There's always the possibility that they're scum together I guess.

But this makes me rethink my vote on her.

...

I still don't see "gut" play jiving with the rest of QF's comments this game, but I am starting to see Akonas as more scummy. Especially after his last post. I do not like how he freaks out asking us to unvote QF. It does not make sense for him to be so convinced that she is not scum, especially considering his earlier FOS on her today. It seems like he is just trying to gain her support. Which backfired.

I have to think about this a little. I want to hear Akonas' answers to my questions from last post.

But he is looking like a good lynch to me right now.

[Pink Puppy]

And in one of your posts, you FOS QF. So why are you so against QF lynch now?

Because FoS =/= Vote.

But it shows you were suspicious of her. What has she done to change your mind? And change your mind so drastically that we should all stop voting her??

Actually, I am not discounting gut. I am saying I don't think it makes sense with the rest of her play here. She has insisted about being "sure" about people, and not wanting to make hasty decisions. For someone who wants to be careful, it seems ridiculous to suddenly start relying on gut.

For someone who wants to be careful, you're encouraging her awful much to vote. You're saying both that she should change her playstyle and that changing her playstyle is scummy. You can't have it both ways.

Also, you're votemongering, which is often scum trying to get people to jump on a wagon, especially in a game as slow as this one.

Asking her to vote isn't asking her to change her playstyle. I don't think "sitting the fence" is a playstyle." I'm saying that I wouldn't expect a careful player to play based on gut. It doesn't make sense to me.

And how am I vote mongering?

Would you rather QF not vote? I bet you would, seeing as she is voting you!

Overall, I don't see why Akonas would try so desperately to get us to unvote QF unless he was just trying to buddy up to her. He has FOSed her a few other times throughout the game before the one today, and I am starting to think the FOSes were made to manipulate her.

unvote; vote Akonas

He is at L-1.

[Pink Puppy]

Seventh Vote Count of Day 3

darkdude (3):

Talitha, Akonas, windkirby

QuantumFruit (2):

Pink Puppy, darkdude

Akonas (2):

Jenter Brolincani, QuantumFruit

With 7 alive it takes 4 to lynch.

Only thing that has changed since this is that I am voting Akonas.

[Pink Puppy]

I think mass claim is a good idea.

About order, I am fine to go first. My suspicions lie more on DD or Jenter than on Talitha, so I'd prefer they went before her. Wherever I fit in, doesn't matter to me. Anyone else have feelings about order?

[Pink Puppy]

Wow. I really suck at alts.

[Pink Puppy]

I hadn't thought of a no-lynch. Usually I hate to no-lynch, but this may be one of the situations where it is smart to do it.

I'm trying to think about the setup from what we know of people who died, and guess how many scum we might have. I know it's not a sure-fire thing, but I think it may help a bit.

So far, we've had two power roles dead, two docs, right?

We have two killing roles/groups, and since nobody claimed vig, we can assume SK.

I also think Jenter is lying about being a rolecop. I've never seen one of those in a mini normal. If he's lying, we have no other power roles in the game, which makes a 3-man mafia group AND an SK seem unbalanced. Seems more likely we have a 2-man mafia group AND an SK.

Unless a vig or other power role is lying? I don't think it would help a power role to lie in lylo, even if that would keep them alive a bit longer. That wouldn't matter because the game could be over soon anyway.

Because of the number of power roles, I think it's likely we have 2 scum here, of different factions.

I think it's likely that DD and Jenter are the last two scum. One is an SK and one is a mafia.

I'm still trying to decide what is best to do here. Do we just no-lynch and hope the town wins through cross-kills?

[Pink Puppy]

How common are night kill immunities in mini games these days... anyone?

I don't think I've seen it lately, but that doesn't mean we can't have it here.

How do you feel about JB's claim of rolecop?

Not only have I never seen a rolecop in a mini, but something seems fishy about the way he gets his results. He's told a person's power, but not allignment? It seems an unusual way for that role to work, even if the role were possible.

[Pink Puppy]

Well, I guess there could be 3 scum still in the game. I prefer to think it is two, just so I'm not alone, and have some chance of winning...

I think Jenter and DD are scum... The reason I was asking about JB's claim is because I want the two remaining scum to successfully kill each other, and not be confused as to who is scum. That's sort of the reason for no-lynching, I believe. To get crosskills.

Otherwise we're just handing scum the game.

vote: no lynch

[Pink Puppy]

I was hoping there was only one mafia left! I had to hope mafia would kill a townie, and I would kill mafia.

Anyway, good game everyone!

My night actions were:
kill: yvonne (she seemed intelligent and possibly dangerous)
kill: cephrir (I thought he was scum, and if not he was dangerous to me anyway)
kill: QF (I thought she was sorta confirmed after Akonas came up town)
kill:jenter (his claim was bad...)

I almost killed Tally a couple times. I almost killed Tally instead of QF but I was afraid QF would be considered town after Akonas came up town. Looking back on it, killing tally would have been better! But I wasn't sure who/how many mafia was left. Even up to the last minute sending in the kill for Jenter I waffled.

I wish I had been able to lynch some of the mafia... I tried for Cephrir and VoD a couple of times, but I didn't get enough support from the town.

I had fun though! SK is definitely my favorite role!

Good game all! And thanks Crub!

[Pink Puppy]

Oh, who was the mafia kill N1? Because I knew yours didn't go through... but nobody else did...

[Pink Puppy]

OMG

So I could have claimed vig.

Although that would have just caused you to kill me faster I suppose. Unless I said I was 1-shot after killing you...

[Pink Puppy]

PP:
Just curious- when you killed Cephrir, did you think him innocent, or guilty, or did it not really matter? (And again N3- were you aiming for town or mafia?)
If the town had played better, I think you probably would have won. I never thought you mafia, and there seemed to be better choices for SK.

My kill on Cephrir: I was pretty sure he was mafia after the exchange we had the previous day. I remember that near the end of the day you were voting Cephrir and I decided not to -- I didn't think anyone else would have supported the lynch and I didn't want the mafia to think they needed to kill me. So I elected to wait for night to kill Cephrir. Also, I thought that in the event he was town that I still needed to kill Cephrir since he clearly kept saying I was scum. He was dangerous to me either way.

My kill on QF: I thought she was probably town and I was hoping a power role (I dind't know what was out there). But it was mostly to get rid of someone I thought would be considered town. I had tried so many times to lynch her and people just weren't going for it. And I had taken the position that "QF scum would have killed town akonas a long time ago." So when Akonas came up town, I knew I had to lay off of her.

[Pink Puppy]

Tally, I went back and forth about you for almost the whole game. I thought you had a good chance of being scum or a power role, so when you claimed townie, I was obviously getting more sure you were scum. But Jenter's claim made him more of a sure thing to hit mafia, so I killed him the last night.