Newbie 993 - Game Over!

[Leech]

Not at all. I'm saying that I won't vote until I would want everyone to vote with me, not that I won't vote unless it's with the current majority. I'm not setting this policy in stone, but it's what I'm most comfortable with right now.

What you are saying is that you will withhold voting until you want that player lynched. This isn't the same thing as withholding a vote until you're comfortable with that player being lynched, you're clearly stating that you wont vote until the time you want a lynch to occur. I'm having a hard time justifying that in my mind. Would you care to enlighten us on why you feel that way?

Mysterio: Mostly for confirming before the mod finished sending PMs

Why is that a reason to be suspicious?

Currently, my only suspicion lies with Hinduragi, but depending on his response, that could change to a total "I have no clue" status for me.

You should try to avoid showing signs that your suspicions are weak, especially before the player has had a chance to respond. What you just did was clearly state that if he responds in the correct way, you'll have nothing. You want to keep the scum on their toes and try and force mistakes. When you show signs that, even you, aren't sure if your suspicions are warranted, then they know they don't have to try as hard to defend. The harder they have to defend, the more likely they are to slip.

[Leech]

I didn't notice this when I posted:

You mention backing off from Leech twice, in posts #35 and #40, as if you're afraid he didn't see that you're backing off the first time. It looks kind of like "Get attacked, counterattack and back off, hope the attacker backs off for parity." It looks calculated to me.

That is a very valid point that I did not catch. Why did you feel the need to post that twice?

[Mysterio]

You mention backing off from Leech twice, in posts #35 and #40, as if you're afraid he didn't see that you're backing off the first time. It looks kind of like "Get attacked, counterattack and back off, hope the attacker backs off for parity." It looks calculated to me.

Easy to clear up. Post #40 was a response to Thian. Was making it clear to him that I had backed off that particular line of argument. But don't get me wrong, me backing off is conditional. As of now, I really have nothing of substance to continue my FoS on Leech, but that can certainly change if Leech posts something that falls in line with my previous suspicions.

When you show signs that, even you, aren't sure if your suspicions are warranted, then they know they don't have to try as hard to defend. The harder they have to defend, the more likely they are to slip.

Got it, thanks for the tip.

[Leech]

Easy to clear up. Post #40 was a response to Thian. Was making it clear to him that I had backed off that particular line of argument.

Ok, but Thian wasn't even asking about that subject at all. He asked you about your perspective on voting styles. The only time he mentioned my name was when he was referring to my style of voting. Why did you make the link and feel the need to specify you were backing off a second time, when that had nothing to do with his post?

[Trachimbrod]

Not at all. I'm saying that I won't vote until I would want everyone to vote with me, not that I won't vote unless it's with the current majority. I'm not setting this policy in stone, but it's what I'm most comfortable with right now.

What you are saying is that you will withhold voting until you want that player lynched. This isn't the same thing as withholding a vote until you're comfortable with that player being lynched, you're clearly stating that you wont vote until the time you want a lynch to occur. I'm having a hard time justifying that in my mind. Would you care to enlighten us on why you feel that way?

Mysterio: Mostly for confirming before the mod finished sending PMs

Why is that a reason to be suspicious?

I'm not sure I understand. Is there a difference between being comfortable with a lynch, and wanting the lynch?

It's modgamery, I'd guess that the mafia might get PMs first. I don't take it seriously, it was going to be my reason for a random vote, but the game was past that stage by the time I was going to post, so I didn't make that vote. It's not a good suspicion, but it was there and nothing else was. Now that I think about it, I am more concerned and suspicious of the fact that he mentioned backing off from the same person twice in quick succession.

I like how this forum shows you new posts when you click submit. Upon rereading, I'm confused as to why you'd want to make that clear to Thian, because...as Leech just posted... it didn't seem related to his post.

[Mysterio]

Ok, but Thian wasn't even asking about that subject at all. He asked you about your perspective on voting styles. The only time he mentioned my name was when he was referring to my style of voting. Why did you make the link and feel the need to specify you were backing off a second time, when that had nothing to do with his post?

I took his post as asking why I thought your specific playstyle muddles things up over simply changing your vote to the person you are most suspicious of. My reasoning was based on objections that I had previously made against you, so I wanted to make it clear that you had answered those objections. My goal is to find scum, not to incessantly badger someone when I have no good reason to do so. So, unless your goal here is to make yourself look suspicious (which, ironically, you now are), then I'm not sure why you have a problem with me moving on? This is Day 1, which means our avenues of investigation are limited. I'd rather hear from the rest of the players (still a few who haven't posted all that much) before I go whole hog in pushing for

anyone

to be lynched.

[Hinduragi]

I voted for a pretty ridiculous reason, but it was a reason none-the-less.

Voting for less-likely reasons are one thing, but you should never vote for something completely ridiculous. That just makes the game take longer to start.

I really don't see where you're going with this. The game starts depending on when people start questioning votes, defending their votes, and hunt scum.

Actually, in many cases you learn more from a town lynch than you do from lynching scum. Obviously lynching scum is our main priority, but it's not always such a horrendous thing to mislynch, as it can result in leading us in the right direction.

Really? I have seen plenty of town mislynches that are then followed by "Hey, he was on the bandwagon, let's lynch him" or "Hey, he started the entire case, let's lynch him" which results in a second mislynch. Once someone flips scum, you get to look for affiliaitions and links to the other players that scum had. Town mislynches have confused townies and scum(Though I've seen instances where it was just townies alone) on them, in most cases.

That statement just seems wrong. Previously in your post you make it appear that you are trying to help, by explaining things then follow it up with passing questions off on the IC. While, the IC is here to help newer players, you specifically took on a "teaching" role immediately before doing so. You know what that says to me? You wanted to start off the game winning some townie points by trying to help, then pass the buck off to the IC so he could take on the actual role of IC, that he is assigned in this game.

Yeah, it probably wasn't clear what I was thinking so let me be straightforward about it. The IC immediately said he was going to be gone for most of the day. I figured it would be a much easier way to start the day off by explaining why we just voted for what could be described as the shittiest reasons they've seen. It seemed better than waiting for him to come back and explain why we just voted off of seemingly nothing.

Hinduragi: What do you not understand?

I didn't understand why you said the other players didn't have wikis since mine had just been updated.

The only thing to do would be to question Hinduragi as to why he felt the need to write "Do not mislynch though"

I think it's obvious. I didn't want a mislynch.

I was gonna vote Mysterio for being first as well, but I don't want to pile on in RVS.

L-3(3 votes away from being lynched) is not anything I consider dangerous in a newbie game.

Not at all. I'm saying that I won't vote until I would want everyone to vote with me

I don't get it. So if you don't want people to vote with you, you won't vote. So, uhh, you're saying you won't bus as scum? Or did you mean you want to lead bandwagons?

[Mysterio]

Thoughts on Hinduragi's post later, but I just want to point out that Leech had managed to remove himself from my radar by answering my objections, only to give me new reason to cast my FoS at him. This type of schizophrenic play is something I have seen from scum before. I have to ask, why would

you

care if I stopped being suspicious of you? Unless your goal is to use my suspicion as some kind of shield against accusations of flying under the radar, or better yet using it as an opportunity to cast suspicion back on me and possibly getting a townie lynched. I must then ask, what possible town motive would cause you to overzealously bring suspicion back onto yourself?

Very questionable behavior by Leech. And I'm off to work. Will certainly be back on later tonight to fully digest and respond to Hinduragi's post.

[Trachimbrod]

Noted about L-3 not being dangerous. However, as my only reason at that time was that he posted first, it wasn't worth wagoning on. I wouldn't have wanted everyone else to vote for him just because he posted first.

What I mean is that I'd want the lynch. I don't care if I'm the first person voting or the last. I don't want to vote to pressure information out of someone if I don't have enough information already to want to see them lynched. I guess with 9 people it's okay to do that sort of thing though, and I may be too conservative, but I don't feel comfortable with voting to pressure.

[Leech]

I'm not sure I understand. Is there a difference between being comfortable with a lynch, and wanting the lynch?

No there's not really a difference in those two phrases, but that's not exactly what you were saying. You said "I'm saying that I won't vote until I would want everyone to vote with me" If that event were to happen, then your vote and the subsequent votes would end the phase. That is the period of time you stated you wanted to wait for. I said that I don't vote until I'm comfortable with a lynch. If the player gets lynched, I'm ok with that. But that does not mean that I want that person lynched at that exact moment. I've been wrong in games before, so I always allow room for that possibility.

I took his post as asking why I thought your specific playstyle muddles things up over simply changing your vote to the person you are most suspicious of.

Yes, he asked which of the two muddles things up more. You could have just answered, but you went into a defensive mode about it, seemingly needing to justify yourself when that really wasn't required. Being overly defensive isn't always a scum tell, but the situation around this one is interesting.

So, unless your goal here is to make yourself look suspicious (which, ironically, you now are), then I'm not sure why you have a problem with me moving on?

See, had you not posted this portion, I probably would have accepted your answer to why you posted what you did. But this, to me, is a clear appeal to emotions and nearly a threat. The fact of the matter is, I have no problem with you moving on. I never said I did. I simply wanted to know why you did feel the need to repeat yourself, when that wasn't the subject of the post you were replying to.

Here's a few quick questions for you: How does reading posts from others and pursuing points made, that I also find suspicious, makes me look suspicious to you? Would you have this same outlook if it was someone besides yourself I was questioning?

This is Day 1, which means our avenues of investigation are limited.

What does day 1 have to do with anything?

Are you suggesting that because this is day 1, our minds work less effectively than they will in future phases? If not, then I don't see your point. Just beacuse this is the first phase of the game, it doesn't mean that our investigative skills are any less than they will be in future phases. Unless there's a cop in this game, then our avenues of investigation will be the same in every phase of this game, as well. Just because there have been no lynches in the game, does not mean that we have any less of a chance of lynching scum today, as we will in any other phase of the game.

I'd rather hear from the rest of the players (still a few who haven't posted all that much) before I go whole hog in pushing for anyone to be lynched.

Who's suggesting otherwise? You're defending a case that was never made.

[Trachimbrod]

I think I understand the point of confusion now. In my ideal situation, I would have a solid case that gave me and everyone else certainty, and be able to provide satisfactory answers to any rebuttals. When I explain it, it sounds too optimistic, but it's what I'm striving for. I may have to make some compromises to my voting policy, I'll think about it.

I don't see Leech caring that you stopped being suspicious of him, Mysterio, the issue was why you took two posts to say that you stopped being suspicious of him. It shows that you want him to care.

Could you please explain exactly what makes you so suspicious Leech again? I'm having trouble seeing your reason.

[Leech]

I really don't see where you're going with this. The game starts depending on when people start questioning votes, defending their votes, and hunt scum.

I'll give you a really basic example:

Person A: I vote for ____ because his avatar is purple!

Person B: What if the avatar was green would you still be voting for me? In fact, what does my avatar have to do with this game at all? Why are you basing so much of your vote on something so trivial with nothing to do with the game whatsoever?

Person A: ...It was just a random vote.

That's what happens when you try to make something out of a random vote. It's ridiculously easy to kill the entire point with a single sentance and end the conversation.

If you can find an early reason, may not be the best reason in the world but a reason nonetheless, to vote for someone that you can actually defend it's far more productive. Trying to make something out of a completely random vote is nearly impossible. Trying to make something out of a vote that actually has a chance of being true, results to discussion that actually relates to the game.

Really? I have seen plenty of town mislynches that are then followed by "Hey, he was on the bandwagon, let's lynch him" or "Hey, he started the entire case, let's lynch him" which results in a second mislynch.

Did you ever see me say that mislynches are a

good

thing for the town? No. I said that in some cases you learn more from them. I'd like to think that even though this is a newbie game, that no one will go "Oh he started the entire thing he must be scum!" if we mislynch. Yes, what you are talking about does happen, but not if the town actually thinks.

It's always good to lynch scum, but 100% of the time there is more WIFOM surrounding the lynch. "Would the scum buddy have bussed his partner? Or would he have defended?" In terms of information gained, I've seen many cases where the town learned enough from a mislynch to win the game. I'm not saying this happens every time, but it does happen. You shouldn't fear voting in the chance you will mislynch. Even they give information, that was my entire point.

Town mislynches have confused townies and scum(Though I've seen instances where it was just townies alone) on them, in most cases.

I wasn't talking about, strictly, the people on the wagons. There's more to it than that. Voting patterns, where people got on the wagon, why people hopped off, the reasons for doing all of the above... With all things considered no matter who you lynch, if you play your cards right, you can catch scum out of it.

Yeah, it probably wasn't clear what I was thinking so let me be straightforward about it. The IC immediately said he was going to be gone for most of the day. I figured it would be a much easier way to start the day off by explaining why we just voted for what could be described as the shittiest reasons they've seen. It seemed better than waiting for him to come back and explain why we just voted off of seemingly nothing.

That makes perfect sense.

Thoughts on Hinduragi's post later, but I just want to point out that Leech had managed to remove himself from my radar by answering my objections, only to give me new reason to cast my FoS at him. This type of schizophrenic play is something I have seen from scum before.

I really do not understand this, at all. Why would I care to "remove myself from your radar" in the first place? If you are town, then I'd want you to suspect everyone and not be easily persuaded by a player in this game. The only chance the town has at winning this game is by thinking. I would never want a player to stop suspecting anyone, myself included.I couldn't care less whether or not I'm on your radar, that isn't important to me. Figuring out whether or not you are scum? That is.

What you need to realize is that while I'd rather we actually lynch scum, I know that it doesn't really matter if I die in this game. My own survival is not crucial to a win. Knowledge from my death could benefit the town in the end. So, surviving is not as important as winning is. Your entire point is based around the idea that I would have to survive to win, when that's not true. Again, I think you're possibly projecting your situation onto me. While, even if you're scum, you win with your partner if you die, but your numbers are significantly lower. So, therefore, you would need to survive longer to have a better chance of winning. Being town, I win as soon as both scummers are dead. Doesn't matter when it happens, as long as it happens.

Also, I love the end of that segment. My play is "schizophrenic"? Questioning you, and following up on the concerns of others that I agree with is "schizophrenic scum play"? Sorry, but just because I "got off your radar" doesn't mean that I'm going to back down on my suspicions. I'm not expecting to be exempt from the suspicions of other players, so I'm not sure why you apparently are.

Unless your goal is to use my suspicion as some kind of shield against accusations of flying under the radar, or better yet using it as an opportunity to cast suspicion back on me and possibly getting a townie lynched.

So, by continuing to question you (which is apparently suspicious activity), I'm attempting to intentionally keep myself in the spotlight, specifically to ward off people claiming I'm flying under the radar? I seriously hope when you return from work you come back and read over this post and realize how much of a stretch it is. Especially with the subtle appeal to emotion at the end.

I must then ask, what possible town motive would cause you to overzealously bring suspicion back onto yourself?

Suspicion is a good thing. I don't care if you suspect me, or whether or not I'm on your radar. If you are town, and you are thinking, then we have a better chance of winning. Why would I discourage that?

I must ask you a question (actually several questions), why is your entire outlook from a scum standpoint? I'm not worried about being on anyone's radar, because I don't need to worry about that. I can easily explain all of my actions, because I'm not playing a scummy game. The only people that have to worry about being on the radar, are scum. You're acting like everyone, namely me, should have that concern by default, when they shouldn't. It's like you're passing your fear of being exposed, onto me. You claimed two people were distancing before there was even an exchange.

Why would that thought cross your mind

before

there was even a counter post that could even make you think that? Why are you getting so defensive when I'm asking you simple questions? Why are you trying to discredit my posts by using words like "schizophrenic" when that doesn't even make sense in the context you're using it?

The fact is, I'm not even saying you're scum. I was merely asking you questions, which is what everyone should be doing. I never even gave you any insight as to whether or not I was accepting your answers, or disbelieving them. What caused you to go on this attack, when as far as you now, I was believing you? This seems like more of a scum reaction than town. I'm undecided, but I'm definitely considering the possibility that I got a lucky 50% on this game.

In my ideal situation, I would have a solid case that gave me and everyone else certainty, and be able to provide satisfactory answers to any rebuttals. When I explain it, it sounds too optimistic, but it's what I'm striving for.

I think that's everyone's ideal situation. lol Who doesn't want a case so solid that everyone believes it, and can easily handle any rebuttals along the way? Sorry man, but I've played a hell of a lot of mafia, and I've never been in a situation quite like that. I have built extremely solid cases on scum before, but there's always reasonable room to doubt. You can be extremely certain, and willing to bet on it, and still be wrong. You might have to lower your voting standards, because that ideal moment you're waiting for probably will never happen.

[Trachimbrod]

Could you please explain exactly what makes you so suspicious Leech again? I'm having trouble seeing your reason.

Blech, I meant to say "Could you please explain exactly what makes you so suspicious

of

Leech again? I'm having trouble seeing your reason."
Directed at Mysterio.

[Hinduragi]

That's what happens when you try to make something out of a random vote. It's ridiculously easy to kill the entire point with a single sentance and end the conversation.

Point taken.

You shouldn't fear voting in the chance you will mislynch. Even they give information, that was my entire point

It's not to the point where I fear voting. I'll vote if I think they're more likely to be scum than anyone else currently alive in the game. When you originally said that, it sounded like you were suggesting we shouldn't care about reconsidering our votes once they were on someone. I later saw in another of your posts describing how you thought of things this was not the case.

With all things considered no matter who you lynch, if you play your cards right, you can catch scum out of it.

Agreed but I'd much rather lynch scum.

Steppen -
What's your opinion on things so far? Who do you think seems scummiest? I find it odd that you posted one short reply and then left us.

Brod-
What do you think of Myst?

Myst-
What do you think of Brod?

Everyone else-
Stop lurking.

[steppenwolf]

Now this is just plain silly.

Did you intentionally take that statement out of context and misrep me?

You never have to random vote, in fact that is completely counter-productive.

You should always have a reason for your vote, period. I voted for a pretty ridiculous reason, but it was a reason none-the-less. I will actually defend my vote, as well.

The discussion that stems from votes with reason, are much more informative than votes that are cast from "random" reasons. I'd much rather see a defense of "Oh, well, my reasoning was flawed so I changed my opinion" rather than "It was just a random vote" which leaves it at that.

Voting for less-likely reasons are one thing, but you should never vote for something completely ridiculous.

That just makes the game take longer to start.

I stated, in the paragraph you got that quote from, that my reason was "pretty ridiculous", and it is. While Incog's theory did work 50% of the time, it was also wrong 50% of the time. So while it is statistically better than random voting, I still wouldn't actually lynch for that reason.

I had a response typed out to this, but then read further and saw your explanation of Incognito's theory, of which I knew nothing. Ok, I'll concede that you had a reason for your vote, even though the theory still sounds silly and not remotely convincing.

[steppenwolf]

That's what happens when you try to make something out of a random vote. It's ridiculously easy to kill the entire point with a single sentance and end the conversation.

If you can find an early reason, may not be the best reason in the world but a reason nonetheless, to vote for someone that you can actually defend it's far more productive. Trying to make something out of a completely random vote is nearly impossible. Trying to make something out of a vote that actually has a chance of being true, results to discussion that actually relates to the game.

Ok, I have to agree with the point about random voting.

Just a passing thought, though: If you always vote for the first person to post in every game, how can I really make anything out of that? I assume you're going to follow Incognito's theory whether you're scum or town. So, just as Hinduragi can conveniently answer any questions with a terse "it was just a random vote," you too can brush aside any questions/criticism by saying "it's just Incognito's theory."

[Leech]

If you always vote for the first person to post in every game, how can I really make anything out of that?

Actually, just to clarify, this is the first time that I've started a game using Incog's theory, as this is the first time I've started a game since reading about it. However, it's not really the act that that you make something out of, it's typically the responses and discussion it provides. Just as you saw it and almost instantly said "Oh, this is silly" it creates discussion specific to this game that we can use to get out of the RVS, and onto the rest of the game.

So, just as Hinduragi can conveniently answer any questions with a terse "it was just a random vote," you too can brush aside any questions/criticism by saying "it's just Incognito's theory."

What's your point, exactly? I didn't brush it off in that manner. Stating that I could have reacted in a specific way, when I clearly didn't, seems to be pointless speculating. My point was that if you vote for a reason, apart from something random, it is better for discussion as you can actually defend it. You do not get the same effect with random votes. I guess I could have brushed it off in the manner you are suggesting, but that defeats the purpose to voting for the reason I voted in the first place, yes?

[hohum]

Seems I forgot to plop an announcement down. Illume replaces Gabricoelho

Current vote conut:

startransmission(1): Hinduragi
Hinduragi(1): Mysterio

Not Voting(7): Illume, Leech, steppenwolf, Trachimbrod, Thian, startransmission, Kirbyoshi

With 9 alive it takes 5 to lynch.

[Hinduragi]

Oh, right, forgot to unvote.

Unvote

Hey, Wolf(Or Steppen), why aren't you answering my questions?

[Thian]

Mysterio: Post 30 you stated "I'm really leaning towards the idea that you and hinduragi are simply attempting to distance yourself early so that the rest of us will find it hard to believe that you are scum
buddies."

Why do you feel the need to match two people up already?
We still have not heard from all.

It can also look like you are blaming two innocent people for pairing to try to make them look guilty.

Now I do have a question to all.

Pairing two people together and finding scum as pairs

is it better to scum hunt that way?

or is it better to search for one scum first and then the other?

[Hinduragi]

It's easier to search for them as individuals, undubitably. Looking for affiliations is best left for after you've got a confirmed scum. Speculation like that is just WIFOM.

[Thian]

Just a passing thought, though: If you always vote for the first person to post in every game, how can I really make anything out of that? I assume you're going to follow Incognito's theory whether you're scum or town. So, just as Hinduragi can conveniently answer any questions with a terse "it was just a random vote," you too can brush aside any questions/criticism by saying "it's just Incognito's theory."

I am also going to point out though that Leech is using a theory a theory that has been tested and can spark conversation into whether or not that theory is a flawed theory or good theory. It produces two sides of the coin and allows people to take stances and sides based on someone elses hypothesis and numbers. It gets the game going a hell of a lot faster than
A Random Vote is simply that, random. "I vote so and so for using purple txt" "I vote someone for having no avy" It is a weaker way for people to take sides and find flaws in opinion and thought based on fluff rather than content or theory.

If I had to choose whether or not to analyze someone based on a theory that has been tested

or the fact that someone doesn't have an avatar. I would most likely go with a tested theory that can be debated.

[Thian]

Hinduragi: What do you not understand?

I didn't understand why you said the other players didn't have wikis since mine had just been updated.

That is fair, I just wanted to note, that not everyone does. I don't and I did look at just a few others to make sure I wasn't the only one who didn't.

The only thing to do would be to question Hinduragi as to why he felt the need to write "Do not mislynch though"

I think it's obvious. I didn't want a mislynch.

Okay, that is the reason why you wrote it, but why did you feel the need to write it?

[Thian]

It's modgamery, I'd guess that the mafia might get PMs first.

Well this is certainly interesting WIFOM

1. If the mod hands out PM's First for Mafia then this would be true.
2. If the mod hands out townie roles first, this would be false.
and you have to question if the host had handed out all the roles and then forgot to write "all roles have been handed out" or got delayed before posting, then Mysterio just happened to post before Hohum could get to posting up that note does that denote his guilt or innocence?

Speculation based on WIFOM of Mysterio's guilt is a bit suspect.

About the only thing you have confirmed to noticed and take a stance on is to question the fact that Mysterio had wrote he was backing off of Leech twice in quick succession, but the rest of your conversation seems to be full of "I guess, I am uncertain." I am not saying you are not entitled to feel this way but it would be nice to hear a bit more of your thoughts.

What are you basing your guilty read on Mysterio on, Trachimbrod?

[Leech]

Oh, right, forgot to unvote. Unvote

While you say you forgot to unvote, the question I have is: Why are you unvoting in the first place? Unvoting for the sake of unvoting is pointless. If your vote is on someone that might get lynched, and you don't believe in the lynch, then you have a reason. Not having your vote out there, anywhere, is pointless.

It's easier to search for them as individuals, undubitably. Looking for affiliations is best left for after you've got a confirmed scum. Speculation like that is just WIFOM.

I both agree and disagree with this. It is easier to search for individuals, for sure. But you should always try to match players up as well. It is never too early to start looking for potential scum pairs. It's never best to wait to entertain any possibility, especially considering the game could actually be over before you get a confirmed scum.

Also, how is it WIFOM? I don't think WIFOM is the term you're looking for here.

That is fair, I just wanted to note, that not everyone does. I don't and I did look at just a few others to make sure I wasn't the only one who didn't.

You have to make your wiki. Just click your wiki link, and start editing. I strongly suggest that each player that has completed games does this.

Well this is certainly interesting WIFOM

1. If the mod hands out PM's First for Mafia then this would be true.
2. If the mod hands out townie roles first, this would be false.

This isn't WIFOM either. Wifom is circular logic based of "This isn't true, so this has to be, unless of course this is true, which means this has to be, so the other can't be" or in a game sense: "He'd do this, as this alignment, for this reason; so we think he'd be this alignment, for this reason."

Also, the topic of what time the mod sent PM's needs to stop. Trying to out-guess the mod is considered against the "spirit of the game" and has actually resulted in games getting restarted. Use the tools you have in the game, not the ones that are based around how the mod may have done things.