Newbie 345: Another town has fallen...

[MeMe]

Vote Count

:

diamondfalcon

(2):

Mert, Innocent Townie

Mert

(1):

diamondfalcon

Vel-Rahn Koon

(1):

BrazeGoesMoo

not voting

(3):

Ectomancer, OnFire, Vel-Rahn Koon

Still need four.

[Ectomancer]

Im afraid I must disagree with the both of you. For town, it is not a choice of risk or no risk. It is a choice of risk at every move. We have such a decision on our hands today, we can lynch, or we can no lynch. Both carry risks, both carry potential rewards. Should we lynch, we then must decide who, and with that there are risks. We not only want to get scum, but also avoid offing our own power roles in the game. To avoid that happening, we can lynch off of "feel" or "vibe", or we can pressure people into claiming. Once again, more risk for the town. If we pressure the wrong role to claim on day 1, we could be setting them up for an NK.
Nothing but risk for town, so the question is, what is our likely our best return on risk?

[Innocent Townie]

OnFire/Ecto: I believe we are all saying the same thing: We have to take risks: the end all of the game is not to live; it is to win (which in a C9/newbie game means no one HAS to live to win) We must all practice risk management and weigh the rewards of gaining information and potentially outing scum to the risks of allowing scum to draw the town into fruitless arguments.
My point #2 with this is that scum have more incentive to try to live then the town. Losing half their members day one seems like it would be a large blow. So I am suspicious of people who seem more interested in saving their own hides then generating conversation/information we can all use. Hence my vote on Diamondfalcon.
To sum up: should we play incautiously? No. But we should unequivocally play aggressively. To do otherwise is to give the scum an out.

Side note: My schedule at work is looking like it will be crazy this week. Yesterday I went in at 7:00 AM and wound up getting out of there at midnight. So this week I may be more erratic than normal. I should not miss any more real life days. I apologize for yesterday.

[OnFire]

OK, the game seems to be grinding to a halt, so I think it's time for me to get off the "post-crash" fence:

Vote: Innocent Townie

Here's why:
1. I still don't like his hypocritical vote on Df. I understand he's said that he had a "realization" about their overly cautious gameplay and it makes perfect sense to point that out, but then to vote for it? Fishy.
2. In a similar vein, I also don't like IT's vote for Df because of everyone, Df is the least suspicious to me. So those voting for him become more suspicious.
3. While he has since moderated his stance to the point where we pretty much agree, his initial view that town MUST play risky struck me as a little scummy simply because quick and heedless town play benefits scum and not town.

On preview, the above is far from air tight, but I think it's better than random and provides something to chew on. Whaddya all think?

[Mert]

Whaddya all think?

What do I think? Erm, "die scum" basically sums it up.

Your first point isn't a terrible one, but it's not conclusive either. I wouldn't have had a problem with it if it weren't for your second point - assuming for a second that you're both part of the great uninformed, how can you, at this early stage, state with any degree of certainty that one opinion is worth more than another or is "more correct"? You post like you

know something

and I don't like it.

As for your final point, about Innocent Townie's "town must play riskily" post... well, that's not actually what he said, was it? What he said was that "avoiding risk is something that the town should never do". There is a subtle but important difference between the two statements. One says the town should make risky plays deliberately, the other says that the town should not hold back on doing something risky if it will help them to find scum. The latter is not something I disagree with particularly, but the way you rephrased it makes it into something I

do

disagree with - your misrepresentation of his post has, therefore, been noted.

Actually, I'm going to

Unvote, Vote: OnFire

.

I'm going to pre-empt a few accusations that may come my way now. While I

am

defending IT a little here, I am not his scumbuddy. I just think that the way you (and Ecto, to a lesser extent) have attacked him during this game have been scummy and have looked like somebody stretching to find a reason to place a vote. It's been said by somebody else before, but if IT and I were scumbuddies I probably wouldn't expose us both like this, would I?

Now before you all bash me to death with your WIFOMsticks, let me point out that I'm not using this as evidence that we're not scum, I'm just flagging it up before you all decide to accuse me of it again.

[OnFire]

I suspected something like this might happen - I'm glad it did.

Whaddya all think?

What do I think? Erm, "die scum" basically sums it up.

Your first point isn't a terrible one, but it's not conclusive either. I wouldn't have had a problem with it if it weren't for your second point - assuming for a second that you're both part of the great uninformed, how can you, at this early stage, state with any degree of certainty that one opinion is worth more than another or is "more correct"? You post like you

know something

and I don't like it.

Talk about misrepresenting! I did not say I

knew

anything and I said absolutely nothing about someone being "more correct" than another. (I don't even know what you mean by that). What I said was that, so far, Df is at the bottom of my suspicion list, so those who vote for him look more suspicious to me. What's wrong with that?

As for your final point, about Innocent Townie's "town must play riskily" post... well, that's not actually what he said, was it? What he said was that "avoiding risk is something that the town should never do". There is a subtle but important difference between the two statements. One says the town should make risky plays deliberately, the other says that the town should not hold back on doing something risky if it will help them to find scum. The latter is not something I disagree with particularly, but the way you rephrased it makes it into something I

do

disagree with - your misrepresentation of his post has, therefore, been noted.

What you call a misrepresentation is really just a paraphrase. I think anyone who looks over the complete exchange between me and IT on this point will conclude that I was not trying to twist his words, merely restating my initial reaction back in posts 70 and 74.

Actually, I'm going to

Unvote, Vote: OnFire

.

I'm going to pre-empt a few accusations that may come my way now. While I

am

defending IT a little here, I am not his scumbuddy. I just think that the way you (and Ecto, to a lesser extent) have attacked him during this game have been scummy and have looked like somebody stretching to find a reason to place a vote.

Now you're just making things up. I

defended

IT in the face of Ecto's (IMO) overly agressive attacks. Of course, those posts have been deleted, so I can't quote, but I had at least two posts saying I thought Ecto was hammering at IT for almost nothing and I was just about to vote for him over it when he backed down. This exchange with IT is the first major back-and-forth I've had with him for the entire game, and definitely the first time I've attacked him (not counting my initial totally random vote).

Now before you all bash me to death with your WIFOMsticks, let me point out that I'm not using this as evidence that we're not scum, I'm just flagging it up before you all decide to accuse me of it again.

Keep dancin', friend. I think this post of yours is very telling and I hope others look at it closely.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

OK, the game seems to be grinding to a halt, so I think it's time for me to get off the "post-crash" fence:

Vote: Innocent Townie

Here's why:
1. I still don't like his hypocritical vote on Df. I understand he's said that he had a "realization" about their overly cautious gameplay and it makes perfect sense to point that out, but then to vote for it? Fishy.
2. In a similar vein, I also don't like IT's vote for Df because of everyone, Df is the least suspicious to me. So those voting for him become more suspicious.
3. While he has since moderated his stance to the point where we pretty much agree, his initial view that town MUST play risky struck me as a little scummy simply because quick and heedless town play benefits scum and not town.

On preview, the above is far from air tight, but I think it's better than random and provides something to chew on. Whaddya all think?

1. You never address the rebuttal he made to my question (post 62):

Vel-Rahn Koon/OnFire:

you're voting for Diamondfalcon based on behavior you admit to exhibiting?

Yes. I am. Because until his post I had not realized why my lack of confidence had to be a bad thing. When I realized how it was bad and understood why it allowed me to use that knowledge to look at others’ play. The most hypocritical thing I could do would be pretend that I had been aggressive when I had not. That does no one any good. The greatest advantage of being town is the ability to be totally honest. For me to claim I do not make mistakes will in the long run set up more opportunities for the game to be derailed than for me to be open about realizations I have as I have them. And to overlook a potential scum sign just because I have been guilty of it in my ignorance does not seem like the right play.

Open question: If you realized you were doing something that decreases the town’s changes of winning when you found someone else doing it what would you do?

I find this response to be more than adequate of an explanation as to why he made the play he did. I may not agree with it, but I don't find that it's something to cause a vote. What would your answer be to his open question?

2. Eh. Just because you don't find a particular player suspicious, doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't or wouldn't. Different people pick up on different things, and you may not have seen something that IT saw that set off his scumdar w.r.t. Df. I don't think it's a wise idea to base a vote for someone off of the fact that he finds someone suspicious who you don't.

3. I find this to be a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said.

So I have to disagree with you, OnFire, and I will restate:

Avoiding risk is something we should never do.

That is not to say we should take needless risks, and I would certainly neither say something I know would get me lynched (unless I could be sure of taking the scum down with me) nor will I sit idly by and let myself be torn down without doing everything I can to pull out as much information as possible for days 2 and 3. But I honestly believe that any fear of getting lynched is not proper town play. Again, this does not mean we should try to be lynched; far from it: just that when right is on one’s side one must know it.

So I have to disagree with you, OnFire, and I will restate:

Avoiding risk is something we should never do.

I'm not sure we're all that far apart, actually. I completely agree (and stated above) that we must be active and generate discussion. However, if "never avoiding risk" means playing without caution, then that's something I cannot agree with. Incautious play by the town can only help the mafia.

(Note: cautious does not = meek)

In post 73, IT spells out that we should not take needless risks. In post 74, you're agreeing with him, but you're apparently ignoring everything in post 73 that comes after "Avoiding risk is something we should never do". Then, you vote for him in post 78 based on it. By taking his statement out of context you're making yourself look very scummy, because it seems like you're purposefully trying to misrepresent what he said, and place a vote on him based on a fallacy. You agree with what he was saying, and you're saying the same thing he said in post 74 with this: "However, if "never avoiding risk" means playing without caution, then that's something I cannot agree with." so how can you possibly vote for him?

Vote: OnFire

[Ectomancer]

Wow. I guess if I give other people a chance to talk, they practically lynch themselves. You continue to disparage my frontal attack on IT, but the reactions I got around the board were telling, and with this you act as though you didnt get anything out of it. Mert and VRK make good pbp's on the exchange with IT.

vote OnFire

[OnFire]

1. You never address the rebuttal he made to my question (post 62):
I find this response to be more than adequate of an explanation as to why he made the play he did. I may not agree with it, but I don't find that it's something to cause a vote. What would your answer be to his open question?

I addressed it somewhat obliquely in my vote post:

I understand he's said that he had a "realization" about their overly cautious gameplay and it makes perfect sense to point that out, but then to vote for it? Fishy.

To be clearer, I was saying that I thought it was perfectly valid to point out his realization, but the vote was hypocritical. So if, it were me, I would have pointed it out, but not voted. (Same as you, if I'm not mistaken).

2. Eh. Just because you don't find a particular player suspicious, doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't or wouldn't. Different people pick up on different things, and you may not have seen something that IT saw that set off his scumdar w.r.t. Df. I don't think it's a wise idea to base a vote for someone off of the fact that he finds someone suspicious who you don't.

Fair enough. I still think it is a somewhat valid data point.

3. I find this to be a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said.

So I have to disagree with you, OnFire, and I will restate:

Avoiding risk is something we should never do.

That is not to say we should take needless risks, and I would certainly neither say something I know would get me lynched (unless I could be sure of taking the scum down with me) nor will I sit idly by and let myself be torn down without doing everything I can to pull out as much information as possible for days 2 and 3. But I honestly believe that any fear of getting lynched is not proper town play. Again, this does not mean we should try to be lynched; far from it: just that when right is on one’s side one must know it.

So I have to disagree with you, OnFire, and I will restate:

Avoiding risk is something we should never do.

I'm not sure we're all that far apart, actually. I completely agree (and stated above) that we must be active and generate discussion. However, if "never avoiding risk" means playing without caution, then that's something I cannot agree with. Incautious play by the town can only help the mafia.

(Note: cautious does not = meek)

In post 73, IT spells out that we should not take needless risks. In post 74, you're agreeing with him, but you're apparently ignoring everything in post 73 that comes after "Avoiding risk is something we should never do". Then, you vote for him in post 78 based on it. By taking his statement out of context you're making yourself look very scummy, because it seems like you're purposefully trying to misrepresent what he said, and place a vote on him based on a fallacy. You agree with what he was saying, and you're saying the same thing he said in post 74 with this: "However, if "never avoiding risk" means playing without caution, then that's something I cannot agree with." so how can you possibly vote for him?

I am just not seeing this "gross misrepresentation." In post 73 he moderates his initial stance, but repeats the main point : "Avoiding risk is something we should never do." Note the "never." Here's how I read that: If you are never avoiding risk, then you are playing risky. To me, it still seemed like he was advocating a style of play for the town that I think is not good, and that was why I posted more in 74. When I posted, I was just paraphrasing how I interpreted his posts. It's not like I pulled this out of thin air.

Look, I get it, my evidence against IT is thin. I admitted as much when I voted for him. And certainly each individual point is not enough to vote for him. But

taken together

, I felt my three points were enough for a vote. I certainly had no more on anyone else, and I wanted to get some discussion going (which I seem to have succeeded at )

And for what it's worth, I think your criticisms of my post are reasonable (with the exception of "gross misrepresetation"). Mert's post, on the other hand, was

very

scummy, IMO.

[diamondfalcon]

I can't see how a mafia member would be defending someone (me) that already has two votes on him when he could help argue for my lynch, or just ignore it. It's people like V-R K and Ectomancer that are invoking my suspicions now by jumping to act without so much as another reply from OnFire. Personally, I think Onfire is innocent, though I may be a little biased since he's the only person who seems to understand me. Onfire's just overall been pretty clearheaded in his posts or he's a really good actor.

[OnFire]

Wow. I guess if I give other people a chance to talk, they practically lynch themselves. You continue to disparage my frontal attack on IT, but the reactions I got around the board were telling, and with this you act as though you didnt get anything out of it. Mert and VRK make good pbp's on the exchange with IT.

vote OnFire

Man, I'm getting reamed here

I said nothing whatsoever about "what I got" from your attacks on IT. What I did say was, at the time, I thought your attacks were unwarranted and overly agressive - that is,

until

you explained yourself, at which point I backed off. To sum up: at the time, I thought your attacks were scummy because they appeared to be based on nothing. Then you explained what you were doing, so I no longer think that and your play did in fact generate good discussion and some potential "alignments."

But that doesn't change the fact that Mert says I was attacking IT

even more than you

, when that was clearly not the case. What do you think about that?

[diamondfalcon]

Edit: Sorry, just Ectomancer, not V-R K, since V-R K was actually did reply to Onfire. Ectomancer just seems to ride with their arguments.

[OnFire]

One more thing I should have added to my last post:

I'm about to be offline for many hours, but assuming I don't get lynched in the meantime, I will happily respond to all criticisms/questions. Please don't mistake my silence for avoidance

[Mert]

Unvote

to avoid a careless hammer. I currently think OnFire is scum, but I'm open to hearing more from him before he is killed.

[Ectomancer]

Unvote

to avoid a careless hammer. I currently think OnFire is scum, but I'm open to hearing more from him before he is killed.

That's ridiculous. There is no careless hammer, and there is no tempting scum without the bait. If you think OnFire is scum, you should have left the pressure on with your vote. Once we agreed as town to lynch, we get the 4th vote on, anything before that and we know we have scum as the 4th on the wagon.
If you are open to hearing more from him, why did you take off the incentive for him to talk?

[BrazeGoesMoo]

Unvote

to avoid a careless hammer. I currently think OnFire is scum, but I'm open to hearing more from him before he is killed.

You think he's scum, yet you don't want him killed? How is this a careless hammer? No faith in your own decisions?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Sorry guys but I agree with Mert here.

The best way for us to catch scum is by having a long Day 1 with plenty of discussion. That way there's a lot of information present for us to help weed out the scum. If someone did drop a hammer, carelessly or not, that would only give us 4 pages of information with which to work.

short days = bad for town

Assume that someone did hammer before Mert unvoted. End of Day 1. Day 2 starts, and assuming we had a night kill, that leaves us with 5 players left. One of the 5 left is the person who hammered, and is almost assuredly scum. Then you have to now stretch Day 2 out as long as possible, with only 4 people giving you information. The outed scum isn't going to say anything, because he'd just be helping you catch his scumbuddy. And, since you're missing two players now, that means that you don't get as much discussion on Day 2 as you would have on Day 1. That brings us to Day 3 at LyLo endgame with only 3 players left, and very limited information. That makes it extremely hard on us to find that last scum. If you can't find any connections between the outed scum and his partner from the limited information on Day 1 and the possibly limited information on Day 2, then you have a 33% chance to get a lucky lynching. I don't like those odds.

short days = bad for town

If I was scum, and I saw 3 votes on someone on page 4, I'd hammer without a second thought. Sure, I would out myself, but the chances of you catching my scumbuddy at that point just went through the floor. Newbie games are already weighted in the scum's favor 64:36. Why make it easier on them?

FoS: BGM and Ecto

. You guys are experienced enough that you should understand this.

[OnFire]

Unvote

to avoid a careless hammer. I currently think OnFire is scum, but I'm open to hearing more from him before he is killed.

That's ridiculous. There is no careless hammer, and there is no tempting scum without the bait. If you think OnFire is scum, you should have left the pressure on with your vote. Once we agreed as town to lynch, we get the 4th vote on, anything before that and we know we have scum as the 4th on the wagon.
If you are open to hearing more from him, why did you take off the incentive for him to talk?

I'm back, and needless to say happy I didn't get lynched while offline. I don't need 3 votes on me to give me an incentive to talk - I think it's fair to say I've been one of the most active players in this game so far without that "incentive"

I am more than happy to continue to try to defend the reasoning behind my IT vote (which is admittedly looking lamer to me after V-R K's critique). I believe I have responded to each so far (and have raised some questions that I would like to see addressed), but if my explanations were unsatisfactory, I'll try to be clearer.

More than anything, the vote was an attempt to get discussion happening (like Ecto's earlier and now erased move on IT), and at least it seems that I got that right even if I unfortunately made myself look scummy in the process. As flimsy as my "evidence" is, and I acknowledged as much at the time, it was more than I had on anyone else, so I thought I should proceed with it.

[Ectomancer]

You keep repeating short days = bad for town like some kind of mantra. Of course short days are bad for town, but long ones are only better when they yield information.
You know what we got when a speed lynch happens? We got 1 of 2 scum. We got day 2 for claims and discussion and then day 3 is our

only

lylo situation.
What happens when we setup a lynch such that the hammer isnt necessarily a scumtell? We get more speculation. If we lynched a townie, not only are we at 5 players the next day, but 2 of them are scum and we arent certain of our lynch. Oh yes, we also have back to back lylo situations.
I prefer just 1 lylo, thank you very much, but you are experienced enough that you should understand this.

[Mert]

You keep repeating short days = bad for town like some kind of mantra. Of course short days are bad for town, but long ones are only better when they yield information.
You know what we got when a speed lynch happens? We got 1 of 2 scum. We got day 2 for claims and discussion and then day 3 is our

only

lylo situation.
What happens when we setup a lynch such that the hammer isnt necessarily a scumtell? We get more speculation. If we lynched a townie, not only are we at 5 players the next day, but 2 of them are scum and we arent certain of our lynch. Oh yes, we also have back to back lylo situations.
I prefer just 1 lylo, thank you very much, but you are experienced enough that you should understand this.

Having one of two scum pretty much bagged is all well and good, but if you have no record to look for possible partnerships then you're next lynch could effectively come down to "gut" with little to back it up. I don't see how this necessarily benefits the town.

Yes, I

do

think OnFire is scummy but I don't agree that unvoting him was a bad move in spite of this. The reason that I stated that I thought he was scum in that post was so that he should, to all intents and purposes, still consider himself at L-1 meaning that the town gets the benefit of his reaction in such a situation without the risk of cutting the day shorter than it need be.

I'd also be lying if I said that you and V-R-K jumping on immediately after my post didn't ping the old 'dar. This is something I wanted to explore before we end today, so to that end I will

Vote: Ectomancer

. I don't necessarily disagree with your (albeit brief) reasoning for putting somebody on L-1 but the speed and timing of it just don't sit well with me.

In case it wasn't clear though,

FoS: OnFire

. You're not out of my scope just yet, so don't think I won't move my vote back to you if you continue to act scummily.

[OnFire]

In case it wasn't clear though,

FoS: OnFire

. You're not out of my scope just yet, so don't think I won't move my vote back to you if you continue to act scummily.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I certainly don't feel "off the hook" at the moment.

In any case, could you address my point here:

I'm going to pre-empt a few accusations that may come my way now. While I am defending IT a little here, I am not his scumbuddy. I just think that the way you (and Ecto, to a lesser extent) have attacked him during this game have been scummy and have looked like somebody stretching to find a reason to place a vote.

Now you're just making things up. I defended IT in the face of Ecto's (IMO) overly agressive attacks. Of course, those posts have been deleted, so I can't quote, but I had at least two posts saying I thought Ecto was hammering at IT for almost nothing and I was just about to vote for him over it when he backed down. This exchange with IT is the first major back-and-forth I've had with him for the entire game, and definitely the first time I've attacked him (not counting my initial totally random vote).

[Innocent Townie]

OnFire:

1. I still don't like his hypocritical vote on Df. I understand he's said that he had a "realization" about their overly cautious gameplay and it makes perfect sense to point that out, but then to vote for it? Fishy.

This we have discussed; upon the realization of how bad this was I could not sit idly by and ignore it.

2. In a similar vein, I also don't like IT's vote for Df because of everyone, Df is the least suspicious to me. So those voting for him become more suspicious.

This disturbs me: There is no one that I consider anywhere close enough to a confirmed innocent that I would vote someone else for being suspicious of them. On day one I cannot even see how it is possible; there is no hard evidence for anything. Upon reading this I tried me make a list of who I am least suspicious of, and the list only included myself. If I may ask, why are you least suspicious of Diamondfalcon?

Talk about misrepresenting! I did not say I knew anything and I said absolutely nothing about someone being "more correct" than another. (I don't even know what you mean by that). What I said was that, so far, Df is at the bottom of my suspicion list, so those who vote for him look more suspicious to me. What's wrong with that?

The only thing that bothers me here is the fact that you have a “bottom of my suspicion list.” I just sat here and tried for 15 minutes to figure out who I think is least scummy, and I simply cannot. I certainly cannot say with enough assurance person X is not scum enough to be more suspicious of person Y because they vote person X. I like to try to make neats lists like that day 2, when some actual info exists, but right not everything is too based on speculation, and with pure speculation and the only sure knowledge being two people are lying and inserting false speculation your assertion Diamondfalcon is safely not scummy begs doubt.

3. While he has since moderated his stance to the point where we pretty much agree, his initial view that town MUST play risky struck me as a little scummy simply because quick and heedless town play benefits scum and not town.

False. I have not moderated my stance at all. I have discussed with you your misinterpretation of my stance, but that is not the same thing.

All that being said I am glad to see you taking some risk, even if it does involve attacking me. I personally feel that you are attacking me not because you are most suspicious of me, but to see how I react to a dose of what I am preaching. I do not think this is a scum play; I think you are just trying to get more insight into my play, which seems pro-town (except point two, which I would still like more info on)

Mert: Once again I find myself agreeing with you, but this time only partially. I think OnFire was simply trying to make a point to me, and was stretching for anything he could find to make it sound stronger. That being said, the certainty did not sit well with me, my interpretation is different, as stated above.

Ecto: What… the…

Wow. I guess if I give other people a chance to talk, they practically lynch themselves. You continue to disparage my frontal attack on IT, but the reactions I got around the board were telling, and with this you act as though you didnt get anything out of it. Mert and VRK make good pbp's on the exchange with IT.

vote OnFire

First, you place someone at lynch-1 4 1/2 hours/4 posts after his post. When I read this I had this huge sinking feeling a speed lynch had occurred while I was at work, and without a doubt you made that a definite possibility. As one of our ICs, you should know this is a newbie game in which people sometimes make foolish mistakes, such as hammering someone too early. It feels possible to me here that you are hoping for a townie misplay.

Unvote

to avoid a careless hammer. I currently think OnFire is scum, but I'm open to hearing more from him before he is killed.

That's ridiculous. There is no careless hammer, and there is no tempting scum without the bait. If you think OnFire is scum, you should have left the pressure on with your vote. Once we agreed as town to lynch, we get the 4th vote on, anything before that and we know we have scum as the 4th on the wagon.
If you are open to hearing more from him, why did you take off the incentive for him to talk?

Your argument may make sense for a non Road to Rome game, but it lacks validity because (1) newbies make mistakes and (2) people use the fact newbies make mistakes to do things and then claim (1). There is no way around it; you cannot establish a metagame where it does not exist because newbies, by definition, do not know the metagame. So why are you pushing for possibly putting the town at lylo?

You keep repeating short days = bad for town like some kind of mantra. Of course short days are bad for town, but long ones are only better when they yield information.
You know what we got when a speed lynch happens? We got 1 of 2 scum. We got day 2 for claims and discussion and then day 3 is our only lylo situation.
What happens when we setup a lynch such that the hammer isnt necessarily a scumtell? We get more speculation. If we lynched a townie, not only are we at 5 players the next day, but 2 of them are scum and we arent certain of our lynch. Oh yes, we also have back to back lylo situations.
I prefer just 1 lylo, thank you very much, but you are experienced enough that you should understand this.

You know what we get when a speed lynch happens? Most likely lylo with even less info than we otherwise would have. Advocating speed lynching is not the right answer. Evidence does not go away just because we do not lynch someone immediately, and more discussion about it allows scum to have more chance to generate data to allow us to link them before a lynch. You are assuming a best case scenario that you have no legitamte way of knowing. Just as OnFire’s minor certainty disturbed me a bit, your greater uncertiantly disturbs me a lot. As much as this casuses déjà vu for me, I have to

Unvote:Diamondfalcon

and

Vote: Ectomancer

. This is not to say I am happy with diamondfalcon; all my reservations about him still exist, but I cannot ignore something as blatant as this.

Wow… while I was typing this there were two posts… one of them was Mert voting Ectomancer. I nearly went back and unvoted just because I am sick of us doing the same thing, but I do not believe that my play should be influenced by another player regardless of how eerie it begins to seem to myself.

Open question: What would you all do if you find yourself consistently sharing the same opinions as another player? To do the same thing over and over looks very odd, and the once I beat Mert to the punch got killed in the crash so now it looks like I am just following him, but he keeps suspecting the same things I do (well, mostly. I still disagree about OnFire) I cannot believe I should ignore my suspicions just because someone else shares them. Comments?

[Mert]

Now you're just making things up. I defended IT in the face of Ecto's (IMO) overly agressive attacks. Of course, those posts have been deleted, so I can't quote, but I had at least two posts saying I thought Ecto was hammering at IT for almost nothing and I was just about to vote for him over it when he backed down. This exchange with IT is the first major back-and-forth I've had with him for the entire game, and definitely the first time I've attacked him (not counting my initial totally random vote).

I note that you defended IT in lost posts. I'll be honest, I'll have to take your word for it as we obviously can't refer back to it, but I do remember it vaguely, if not the details.

The point is that when I said "I just think that the way you (and Ecto, to a lesser extent) have attacked him during this game have been scummy and have looked like somebody stretching to find a reason to place a vote" I didn't mean the

frequency

of the attacks, I meant the

way

the attacks were made and the

substance

behind the posted reasoning behind them.

When I said that you were doing so to a greater degree than Ecto, it was intended to mean that your recent attack on IT looked

more

like it was trying to find a reason to vote than Ecto's attacks, but that Ecto had still looked like he might be doing so. The "Ecto to a lesser extent" did not mean that he had done so less often, but that his attacks had seemed less opportunistic than yours, which is what I was attacking you for.

[OnFire]

The point is that when I said "I just think that the way you (and Ecto, to a lesser extent) have attacked him during this game have been scummy and have looked like somebody stretching to find a reason to place a vote" I didn't mean the

frequency

of the attacks, I meant the

way

the attacks were made and the

substance

behind the posted reasoning behind them.

When I said that you were doing so to a greater degree than Ecto, it was intended to mean that your recent attack on IT looked

more

like it was trying to find a reason to vote than Ecto's attacks, but that Ecto had still looked like he might be doing so. The "Ecto to a lesser extent" did not mean that he had done so less often, but that his attacks had seemed less opportunistic than yours, which is what I was attacking you for.

Hmm, well, that actually makes reasonable sense to me. The phrase "the way you...have attacked him during this game" sounded to me like you were accusing me of attacking him

throughout

the game, which is not at all true. In light of this, I will withdraw my claim that your response to me was scummy.

This disturbs me: There is no one that I consider anywhere close enough to a confirmed innocent that I would vote someone else for being suspicious of them. On day one I cannot even see how it is possible; there is no hard evidence for anything. Upon reading this I tried me make a list of who I am least suspicious of, and the list only included myself. If I may ask, why are you least suspicious of Diamondfalcon?

Let me reiterate that I DO NOT believe Df is confirmed anything and have NEVER said so. (Mert also responded to this point saying he thought I was too "certain" about Df. [post 79]). And I would not place a vote on someone for

solely

this reason - remember, this was one of three points. My position is that I viewed him the least suspicous, and I found it interesting that the person I found least suspicious had the most votes at that time. Why do I think he's the least suspicious? For the most part, it's that he has not posted anything that read scummy to me, whereas several other posters have. He just seems like a true newbie hanging back, asking questions, not knowing terminology, etc. Of course he could be acting, he could be newbie scum and completely fooling me, but that's the honest read I get from him right now.

Now, based on the strong negative reaction to this, I'm willing to concede this is a bad strategy on Day One, when so little is known, and abandon it. (V-R K's post 81 is particularly convincing on this point). I just assumed we're all making lists of things we find suspicious and using that "data" (I use the term loosely) to find the bad guys. No hard evidence, I agree, but suspicions. Non-snarky question: Is everyone really equally suspicious to you? You don't have any ranking at all of who is slightly more scummy-looking than anyone else? I thought that was what the whole FOS thing was about. You have a vote on Ecto right now, is he looking slightly more suspicious to you than everyone else?

[OnFire]

EBWOP: In light of several valid points deconstructing and criticizing my vote for IT, as well as his decidedly non-scummy reaction to it, I believe it only fair to say that that dog won't hunt, and

Unvote

.