Newbie 1015 -- (Game Over!|Town Win)

[zipperflesh]

C'firm'd

I look forward to playing with Thor again. This time I won't have such a disconnect that I had last time due to replacing in.

[zipperflesh]

Let's examine the current game state:

Alive (9/9):

1) tvellalott
2) Ibarra
3) Finner
4) laonious
5) Subterfuge
6) roundabout
7) zipperflesh (SE)
8) EarthIntruder (SE)
9) Thor665 (IC)

Dead:

None yet.

Hmmm....

























This guy looks suspicious.

Vote: Subterfuge

[zipperflesh]

Isn't the game still in confirmation stage?

It is, and usually votes don't count in the confirmation stage, but it's tradition to joke around a bit.

[zipperflesh]

Hey, Roundabout!

I'll hope that everyone confirms soon. But while we wait, we would start random questions...

1. What is yor experience in mafia?
2. How often can you post?
3. What do you prefer: a honest townie or a sneaky scum?

1) This is my third game on MS. I've got +2years of experience on another forum named Paranoia Paradise.

2) At least once a day. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

3) Honest Townie, but I can appreciate scum if they pull off a spectacular win.

[zipperflesh]

Confirmed, cap'n!

Vote: Subterfuge

OMGUS!!!11!11!one!!1
...
1
...

Vote: zipperflesh

So first game for me is go.

Just look at this man's avatar and tell me he's not the one.

[zipperflesh]

CONFIRMAGE!!! (Sorry about delay)

VOTE: tvellalott

Lurker scum! :V

[zipperflesh]

I was all prepared to vote Thor for baseless wagoning, then I read this:

This wagon appears to be made of gold, win, and chocolate truffles. The bulk of my case is focused on the truffle aspect.

I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly.

I also agree with Thor's sentiment regarding Finner's questions. Using random questions can help jump start the game, but you should strive to pick less general questions IMO.

I just wanted to spark some discussion while waiting for others. That way I'll know all of you a bit betterly. There is also a little trap in the questions, but I won't tell it yet.

This first part is fine and dandy, but in my experiences trap's like this are more likely to catch town as they are scum. I think by revealing the existence of said trap diminishes the chances even more because scum will be on guard. That being said, I eagerly await any results you gleam from these questions, perhaps you've planted something in there that I'm not noticing.

Finner is now a vague second on my lynch preference list. It's really situational and I'll need to see how more stuff plays out - will update everyone if my read changes.

Really?

I get the sense that Finner is a townie trying his hand at scum hunting. I don't see any scum tactic in this... I suppose, you could be working the "He's scum trying to trap townies" angle, but then why come out and reveal himself?

[zipperflesh]

Third vote on the wagon, yo!

It's not insanely scummy, but depending on the reasoning or joke behind the vote it could be scummy.

-----

If you don't find Finner scummy for his trap question, you obviously have to find him suspicious for his own vote on this Wagon o'Win. So, the ball's in your court now. How is the 2nd vote on a wagon scummy in RVS?

[zipperflesh]

1) So far Finner has confirmed, asked some random questions (later revealed to be a trap), and bandwagoned on the awesome wagon of win. According to you, somewhere within those three actions Finner has done something worthy of being placed #2 on your scum list. You then say it wasn't the trap questions, nor his vote. So, now I'm wondering if you have anything on him at all. Perhaps, you are scum subtly mudslinging in order to prepare for a future attack, as you can always go back and say, "Hey, I've been on Finner's trail since day started!"

The fact of the matter is that you're putting suspicion on him without giving any reason for that suspicion. That is a scummy action.

Also, by putting Finner at #2 you imply someone has done something worth putting them at #1 on your scum-list. I wonder who that person could be, and what could they have possible done this early in the game to warrant the suspicions of a Norse god.

2) This must be a meta difference, and while I understand your point, I must confess early wagoning does make me suspicious of a person. Granted, its nothing worth hanging them over, but it does give me something to chew on. The vote itself isn't the problem, it's usually the context of the vote. Which sometimes isn't revealed immediately, but only later during rereads after the town has more info to work with.

[zipperflesh]

Zipper, why criticize Thor for his number two choice when we're two pages in?

Because we're only two pages in...

I don't see how he has enough evidence to back an accusation like that at this point in the game, let alone having enough for a #1 choice whom Thor fails to even mention.

Citing suspicions sans evidence is a form of mudslinging, no? Mudslinging is a scum tactic intended to make a person look more scummy than they actually are. Therefore, I find it completely appropriate to criticize Thor on this point.

What do you think early wagoning would tell you, exactly?

Like, I said this is probably a meta-difference. In Px2 we look hard at those who bandwagon without any reason, even in the early stages of the game. Most will use it as a platform to begin an attack looking for reactions from the rest of the town. Early wagoning does provide more insight during the later stages of the game, when you can go back and look at in hindsight.

Again, I don't feel that Thor's vote was scummy. I stated it that way to emphasize how much I enjoyed his wit.

Everyone that's hasn't posted more than once yet... um, do that.

Yeah, what he said!

[zipperflesh]

Zipperflesh is my vague third at the moment, but he's so obtuse I always get a scum read on him apparently.

Don't feel bad, everyone says that until they get used to my playstyle.

[zipperflesh]

WORDS POST PLOX WORDS

I'll just toss in my thoughts for now on Finner, but I don't think he's scum. At least not so far.

Vote: tvellalot

Just randomly voting for now. Now tvellalot, get in here and hit me or something.

FoS: Subterfuge

If you don't think he's scum, what do you gain from putting him at L-1?

@Zipperflesh - I will point out that my methods in the last game, however much you had trouble understanding them, were fairly accurate - yes? Why not just wait to see if I bring more to the surface or not as I've said (twice) that I would do later. Also, my first suspicion is who I'm voting for - no one should ever have that be different except in multi-scum setups which this is not. As far as early wagoning - you're answering your own questions as well as I ever could. Apply this knowledge.

I'm not going to debate your methods, that's irrelevant to the matter. I just find it hard to believe Finner (or anyone for that matter) had done anything worthy of suspicion at that point in the game.

I'm I right in concluding from that statement that you felt tvellalot was more suspicious than Finner, since your vote was on him? Was that vote on him more than a joke?

[zipperflesh]

@Zipperflesh - if your playstyle often gets you suspected when you are town, I advise adjusting it.

Its too ingrained in me to change now. I've been playing the same way for +2 years.

The flip side is that when I'm scum, people usually say they get town reads from me. I suppose its because when I'm town, especially vanilla town, I go balls to the wall and say whatever's on my mind whether it gets me in trouble or not. I understand the principle behind being a good townie, but I often follow the beat of a different drum.

[zipperflesh]

I'm I right in concluding from that statement that you felt tvellalot was more suspicious than Finner, since your vote was on him? Was that vote on him more than a joke?

See, this is what rubbed me wrong last game with you - you always ask one question too far - and then keep asking. Here's a rough breakdown, now shaddap.

Lol! Am I getting under your skin?

1. Pressure votes are not pressure without conviction. Believe it!
2. tvellalot was a non-joke vote insomuch as we had to get a couple votes on somebody in order to see how they and/or others reacted to it.
3. Finner is suspicious for something he didn't do.

1) Aren't scum likely to use false conviction more so than town?
2) I'm with you on this one. However, that doesn't mean I think tvellalot is scum or deserving of a lynch. You make it seem as if you think he's scum, regardless of the fact that we all know its just a pressure wagon.
3. In this case, I expect some sound reasoning from you before the day is over. Whether it pans out or not, I want an explanation. I will wait for it though.

[zipperflesh]

I completely missed EI's post. Responding now.

Well, yeah, that's my point, too. Anyone's second choice isn't going to be a very good one right now. But I guess going back and forth saying it's too early to tell much isn't really going to help us.

True dat.

True, but I have to agree with Thor that you've been putting words in his mouth a bit. Just struck me as weird is all.

Perhaps I'm reading into his words a bit too much, chasing ghosts if you will. Thor doesn't strike me as scummy at the moment, but I eagerly await his reasoning for being suspicious of Finner.

Zipper, why just a FoS? Do you think tvellalot is more suspicious than Subterfuge?

At the moment, I'm not sure Subterfuge is scum, despite his screen name. I'm going to leave my vote on tvellalot for the time being, at least until I see something truly worthy of a vote.

Originally, yes. But then all of the talk about Finner did something or other that made me think that he had the votes, not Mr name-that-doesn't-really-make-sense. Completely lost track of my thoughts when I put him at L-1. The issue wasn't that I didn't notice the other 3 votes, but I dissociated them. I didn't even realize my mistake until I started getting hounded for what I thought at the time was an innocent random vote. That's really it, and it's actually kind of amusing how much controversy it sparked.

But if its that much of an issue for everyone

Unvote

Sheesh.

If it was an honest mistake, it was an honest mistake. If it wasn't an honest mistake, then we have a problem.

Working from the POV of you thinking tvellalot wasn't at L-2, then your vote on him was probably a harmless random vote. What I don't get is why you are now unvoting, and I have to agree with Thor. It looks like your trying to make an appeasement, which isn't really necessary since Thor had unvoted tvellalot putting him back at L-2. You could have left you vote on him.

IMO, quick unvotes like this are huge scum tells. You (as scum) try to follow the wagon in order to get a townie lynched, but once you notice that lynch is going south you rather quickly hop off the wagon. I'm going to count this as a major mark against you, and its definitely worth a vote.

UNVOTE: VOTE: Subterfuge

@EI: I responded to your post before reading this one. This is the kind of thing I was looking for, a definitive scummy action.

Personal experience after that "trap" line. It's... a thing.

I'll wait till my next post to start going at other people.

You're basing the weight of this experience after playing one IRC game?

The point of my last post was merely to state my human error and make some sort of attempt to restore status quo and salvage this disaster, since the whole thing was one big error and was wasting a lot of post space. Speaking of which, I'm pretty much going to just drop this issue after this post. If you want to continue your suspicions of me from this, go ahead.

Ok, back to scumhunting: And... I'm not good at coming up with accusation posts yet. I've always been more of a Phoenix Wright than a Miles Edgeworth.

Innocence always makes me doubt my gut. :/

However, this seems a little fake to me. Almost like your trying to use the "Newb Card" to get out of suspicion. Right now I'm feeling 60/40 on you. Good enough to keep my vote, and you're definitely #1 on my scum list (I have no #2, although Thor is probably a vague #3 ), but if something better presents itself I could consider changing my vote.

[zipperflesh]

At the moment, I'm not sure Subterfuge is scum, despite his screen name. I'm going to leave my vote on tvellalot for the time being, at least until I see something truly worthy of a vote.

This statement bothers me.
I'm sure that at this point RVS was finished, yet you kept your vote on your RVS choice. Isn't the best thing to do at that point is to unvote?

No.

Dropping of a RVS-wagon just because it seems the RVS is over isn't the best thing to do. There is no harm in keeping a little pressure on tvellalot until I find more worthy target. Personally, I'm not fond of straight up unvoting. I'll do it, like if someone is at L-1 or suddenly becomes confirmed or something, but just unvoting for the sake of it.... probably not going to do it. Instead, I prefer to keep my vote where it is until such a time as I find a better lynch option. This also helps during later stages of the game, since by voting I make my opinions known.

[zipperflesh]

@Finner: That's pretty much the general point in starting a game with random questions. The reason you didn't get the answers you wanted to see, was because your questions were too narrow in scope. I suggest thinking of better questions the next time you try this trick; it might bear some fruit that way.

FoS: tvellalot

Thor is right. Try harder.

[zipperflesh]

Okay, so one thing I should mention about me is that I really don't like FoS-ing. Not to say that I think it's scummy, necessarily, I just think it's a dumb convention. Normally I wouldn't say anything, but I find it interesting that you've switched the players you were previously voting and FoS-ing. Why not ask him something specific if you suspect him? And would I be correct in saying he's your second suspect?

I think I was being specific enough --> Speak more or I'll vote you.

I FoS anyone I would vote if I could vote more than one person. I'm comfortable with my vote on Sub right now.

Ibarra

He hasn't posted much and seems to be leaning to the same way with the crowd. I don't really have a good read on him

I find "going with the crowd" a suspicious action.

Ibarra:
Seems to be a cautious townie. I liked his catch of subterfuge's ate. He's only made three posts though (not that I'm judging ) so I can't say more then slight townie feel. Little more than gut.

Can you explain more of why you have a "townie feel" on Ibarra?

2) Ibarra- While you are more involved than tvellaott, you're distancing yourself from danger. You're also keeping quiet about everything besides your suspicions of a player that most every has at least some suspicion towards (ie. me)

I think this is a good point on Ibarra, and I definitely agree with you and Finner. He does seem to be playing it safe by attacking the guy who's already under attack. I also don't like the fact that Iaonious is getting a town vibe from him. There might be connection between them, but it's too early to tell.

FoS: Ibarra

4) laonious- You're playing the game from a calm, logically stand point. Actually, I quite like it and am getting a pretty smooth town read off of you. Though I only have one post to work with...

6) roundabout- You're reading the game with cold logic. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a dangerous thing. You are, however

I sense a slight contradiction here. You think Iaonius is town from playing in a logicaly manner, but you're suspicious of roundabout for using logic. Could you clarify your feelings on these two in a broader sense?

Also, Tvellalott is starting to look scummy for me. Passive players aren't helping the town in any ways.

Really, are you going to just watch? You should take a bigger part in the discussion, at the time you are starting to look scummy.

Now you seem to be leaning with the crowd... Hypocritical?

[zipperflesh]

Someone smells bad and it’s zipperfish.

After starting the wagon on me, which I didn’t initially find suspicious, I see several little tells within his subsequent posts which indicate he might be scum.

POST #33

“I agree whole heartedly.”
Subtle buddying towards Thor regarding an apparently random bandwagon…

“I get the sense that Finner is a townie trying his hand at scum hunting.”
Overt buddying toward Finner. Finner stated in his answers to his own questions that this was only his second game. In otherwords Finner is a newb. I’ve employed this tactic as scum myself before. Buddy up to a newb and take them all the way through the game.

Part 1 - Buddying with Thor

Yes, when taken out of context, it does seem like I'm buddying up to Thor. What you failed to include in your fail-quote was the the razz simile, indicating I agreed with the "gold, win, and chocolate truffles" aspect of Thor's post. I may have been the first to vote for you, but Thor is the one that started a wagon.

Part 2 - Buddying w/ Finner

I don't think Finner being a newb has anything to do with this, because, yet again, you are taking my words out of context. Thor said Finner was his #2 scumspect, and I was disagreeing with him by saying I felt Finner's posts up to that point made him look townie to me. Stating you feel someone is town and explaining why is not a scum-tell.

POST #37

This entire post is full of buddying towards Finner and disreputing Thor.

I'm not seeing why you feel this post is scummy. I was attacking what I felt was a legitimately scummy move from Thor. If you have a problem with my attack on him, then please detail what it is you have a problem with.

POST #45 & #49

More buddying and semantical arguments.

Again, both of these posts are me wrestling with what I feel was a suspicious move from Thor. I found it odd that by page 2 he had found enough evidence to legitimately have two top scumspects.

POST #64

Despite changing your vote to Subterfuge AFTER my posts and clearly being a very active player , it isn’t until other people have suggested my original posts weren’t helpful that you FOS me. You also subtly buddy Thor here, perhaps to counteract all the fail-disreputing earlier…

This is an outright misrepresentation. I voted for Sub in post #54, your first D1 posts comes at #59 & #60. Thor was completely correct in his post against you. There wasn't anything else I could have said that he hadn't already said, so I FoS'd you to show my willingness to vote you should you continue posting 0 content.

You also have this constant WIFOM thing going where you keep ensuring everyone that “if I was mafia I wouldn’t play like this” (POST #46 for example)

Yeah, I can see post #46 was a mistake. I shouldn't have posted that, but its a general observation I hear all the time. Thor's post reminded me of that, so I responded to him in an offhand manner without realizing the implications of WIFOM. As a rule, playstyle shouldn't be taken into consideration against a player, and that statement from me would be best left alone as its WIFOM.

--------------

In conclusion, I have to wonder if you are using a double standard. Here are some other examples of "buddying up" that you seemingly don't find worth mentioning:

EI can be town today, good catch on zipper's FOS - that is weird, and he should address it. I might need to shift my vote, but Subterfuge is working hard to keep himself exciting.

zipperfish

comes off as sounding very genuine. I suspect good things of him. "Perhaps I'm reading into his words a bit too much, chasing ghosts if you will," comes really close to sounding suspicious, and if it weren't true I doubt he'd be willing to risk the negative response admitting that his actions could be a shot in the dark might bring.

#67 by Finner could be said to include buddying up with about four people.

I could go on... just a little curious as to why Tvellalot choose me to accuse, when just about every player is guilty of doing the same thing in some form or annother.

[zipperflesh]

After recently reading Tvellalotts previous game, I am not sure about him. Substerfuge is still my top suspect, but I'll keep my vote on Tvella since Substerfuge has already 3 votes on him.

What about tvellalot's previous games make you unsure of him here?

---------------------

I also notice no contradiction from Thor. In his IC post he made it clear it was not game-related and that he would follow it up with a content post, which he did a few minutes later. The follow-up post contained his vote.

[zipperflesh]

"I realize that statement was WIFOM. But seriously, you shouldn't vote for me when I seem scummy. But ignore when I said that, because it was WIFOM."

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that post should be completely ignored.

If I'm acting scummy, then by all means vote me.

[zipperflesh]

EarthIntruder, at this moment, I'd call him town. He's not done anything I'd consider suspicious.

[zipperflesh]

I wouldn't lynch zipper based on my evidence. Since he is in no danger of being lynched, my vote is merely a FOS. If you notice I started by saying "It might indicate". Emphasise is on the might.

Unvote. Vote: tevellalot

I don't like the way your backtracking here. You attack me, say I'm suspicious, and now say your vote is equivocal to a FoS? Don't like it at all.

Also, you kind of ignored my rebuttal of your attack. What are your thoughts on my response?

Do you think I'm scum or not?

[zipperflesh]

I'm still pretty neutral on zipper, I'd be reasonably game to consider his lynch if for no other reason as that he takes pride in his awkward town meta.

I can't respond to this for obvious reasons, but I'd be glad to talk about it after the game.

[zipperflesh]

God damn people. Lrn2Read.
How can you accuse me of taking things out of context and then take things out of context yourselves... Hypocritical much?

When you attacked and voted me I assumed you though I was scum, later when you backtracked and said it was merely an FoS took me aback. I take it you no longer think I'm scum then.

@zipperflesh: I didn't reply to your rebuttal because that would be foolish. This is not a debate, this is a game of deception. Who dares wins.
If you want a quick analysis of your rebuttal, I'd say it is exactly what I would say if I was in your position, scum or not. You fault my logic and go on the counter-attack. Thus, it neither clears you from being scum or confirms you as being town.
For now, UNVOTE: zipperflesh

So, you admit to using faulty logic to make me look bad.

[zipperflesh]

So, you admit to using faulty logic to make me look bad.

Where does he do this?

In the part I quoted. He said my rebuttal faulted his logic, yet he decides not to respond. That signifies to me that he's admitting his logic was bad.

[zipperflesh]

Errr... No. I admit no such thing...

Then go back and stand by your attacks on me, otherwise you seem to acknowledge the fact that you had no case against me. It should be said that this is different than just being wrong with your case, by backtracking in this manner you seem to admit you knew you had no case against me.

I use the term buddying a lot. There are various adverbs I'll also use in conjunction with it. For example, overt buddying (which I've only used once to describe zipper towards Finner) is when someone out-right defends someone else. I can only see two reason for this. 1) You're scum and thats your scum buddy, or 2) They are scum trying to get on the good side of town, or look pro-town. I find 2 to be much more likely.
However, subtle buddying is when someone says ANYTHING positive about anyone. This is a game of lying. I don't understand how anyone trusts anyone. I see WIFOM on top of WIFOM within EVERY post. Nothing is said or done that couldn't have a second meaning. I trust no one. You're all scum as far as I'm concerned.
So, obviously buddying is not something I would lynch anyone over. Because we all do it constantly, everytime we give an opinion. Hell, you could go back and look at my posts and probably find me doing my very definition of buddying.

I think the word you looking for is Chainsaw defense. Do you discount the possibility of a townie protecting someone they feel to be town from an attack they feel is bad? Scum aren't the only people to defend someone, and your whole point devolves into useless WIFOM and null-tells. If you're going to call "buddying" scummy, then why go on to prove the exact opposite?

[zipperflesh]

And what you failed to point out is where I described it as subtle.
Subtle: Adjective: So delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe.
If you are scum, my pointing this out early in the game would make it more difficult for you to profit from said buddying later in the game. Of course it might be out of context. The fact is that in this game, I very well might have been on the money with this one. You are being terribly defensive about the whole thing…

I suppose, if I am then you've ruined my master plan.
I still think you are reading into my actions too much.

Here is the bit I have a problem with...

1) “Awesome bandwagon of win”. - I might be biased because I am the target of this bandwagon, but this just came out like arse-kissing to me.
2) “According to you, somewhere within those three actions Finner has done something worthy of being placed #2 on your scum list.” – Are you seriously trying to tell me this ISN’T buddying. You then suggest that he(Thor) is scum trying to put early seeds of suspicion on Finner, yet you yourself could easily be putting early seeds of trust on Finner. The whole thing seems highly hypocritical.

1) That's a joke in reference to Thor's original comment on your wagon.
2) I assume you think I was buddying with Finner, but doesn't attacking Thor defeat my earlier buddying of him? Again, I was attacking Thor for mudslinging, or placing baseless suspicion on a player.

Again, here is the bit I have a problem with...

This is called a strawman argument and is completely ridiculous. You seem to be going after Thor with more gusto then I’ve ever gone after you, yet you are now tunnelled on me. Where did all this early suspicion of Thor go? It seemed to evaporate in a gust of OMGUS.

No, it's called questioning suspicious activity.
Thor made the statement that whoever he was voting for was #1 on his scum list. I found this to be a little illogical since his vote on you was apparently a joke vote. If it was a serious vote I wanted to know his reasoning for it.
Thor gave me a reasonable response to his claims against Finner, and if he doesn't follow through I'll call him out for it.

I didn’t mention these other examples because I was suspicious of you, duh. You seemed to be doing it the most. Of course, it is only early in the game so I’ve hardly ignored these examples. You came across as suspicious and I looked for evidence to support my gut.

I can understand and appreciate seeking out evidence to support a gut call. Although, by ignoring other examples an action you consider scummy you use a double standard. Chances are that's not the action stirring you gut. Either, there's something else bothering you, or you are scum using gut as an excuse.

Please reread what you've said and explain to me how it makes any sense.
How is voting not a FOS? HOW? When I vote for you, I FOS you. If I then say, well I was FOSing you by voting for you, it is in no way backtracking. When I unvoted you, that was backtracking.

A vote and a FoS are not the same thing. A vote is a powerful tool, and a FoS is merely a convention to state how you feel.
When you attack someone and follow it up with a vote, you are saying you'd be comfortable seeing them lynched presumably because you feel they will flip scum. If you come in later, especially after a negative reaction, and change that vote to a FoS it appears to be backtracking as now you are just suspicious of someone instead of wanting them dead.

This is the biggest problem I have with you at the moment.

[zipperflesh]

Oh for fucks sake.

I'll reply when I get home.

The AtE doesn't help the case against you. Its still early in the day, and I'm sure this isn't the only wagon we'll see D1.

If you can see and understand where they're coming from, then they're probably town and your only answer is to respond to them as best you can while looking for the real scum.
If you can't understand their case at all then they're probably scum, and you should be voting for one of them while trying to explain to others how scummy that person is.

This, a thousand times this.

The only question in my mind is if you were using them for a scum agenda, or simply because you didn't realize you were doing them.

Exactly, town makes mistakes and part of being a good townie is admitting you were wrong. My concern comes the fact that instead of admitting he was wrong he back peddled his vote into a FoS.

[zipperflesh]

@zipper - I'll have a better gauge of my reactions towards tvellalot when I see his next two or three responses - add it to your list of things you want to demand an explanation from me about.

Lol

[zipperflesh]

I do not have a second scumspect at this time.

[zipperflesh]

I had some light suspicion of Thor over the Finner stuff, and I noted a connection between iaonious and Ibarra.

There was also my FoS on Ibarra for playing it safe, and a small contradiction from Sub in #79.

I guess, if I was going to pick a new person to vote, it'd be Ibarra.

Unvote. Vote: Ibarra

[zipperflesh]

Zipper, why'd you change your vote? Nobody was asking you to change it, I just wanted to know if you suspected anyone else.

UNVOTE: Subterfuge
VOTE: tvellalot

Yeah, not letting you off the hook yet, either.

I don't feel that my vote will get anything more out of tvellalot. I'd still consider lynching him, but I'd like to see some other player's pressured as well. I'm not sold on an Ibarra lynch, but of the few I have mentioned suspicion of he's the one I want to hear out of the most.

[zipperflesh]

Wow, this game's moving faster than my last two.

Really want to hear from Sub.

While I'd be happy with either a tvellalot or Ibarra lynch, I'd rather see Ibarra lynched.

[zipperflesh]

I'm not sold on an Ibarra lynch, but of the few I have mentioned suspicion of he's the one I want to hear out of the most.

What changed?

I'm probably leaning a Subterfuge or zipperflesh lynch, though Sub's hardcore lurkout/flake is making that slot a royal pain to get a solid read on.

#151

Ibarra keeps doing the same thing he's been doing, repeating what's already been said without adding anything new. He's only attacking those who've already been attacked.

Nothing's changed in his behavior since I cast my vote on him, a vote I don't think he's even mentioned.

[zipperflesh]

So you have acurrately assessed him as not being good at scumhunting. Why do you think it's scummy behavior and not newbie behavior?

I'd classify tvellalot as not being good at scumhunting (no offense), since he seemed to have made a mistake. I'd classify Ibarra as being lazy, its a cop-out to repeat the same stuff that's already been said by other people. This is also the second time Ibarra has done this, the first being Sub. Its like he's attacking the easy targets, and thats something I see scum do all the time.

--------------------------

Now that we're coming to the end of day, do you care to share you insight on Finner now?

[zipperflesh]

Didn't I owe you another explanation besides just the Finner one? Also, I'll explain Finner more a little bit later, day isn't over yet.

I believe you mentioned something, but I think I understood where you were coming from.

I hadn't noticed anything from Finner, but let me read back and I'll answer you question. Its possible that Finner just escaped my notice.

[zipperflesh]

@zipperflesh - how do you consider your tell on Ibarra to apply/not apply to Finner?

It does apply to Finner, and I called attention to him in #79 as well. It seems he manged to escape my suspicions as the day wore on because he posted stuff, it just wasn't anything of content. You could say he is actively lurking, thus your accusation of coasting is true.

Ibarra on the the other is more of the classic lurker, only posting when called upon. So he's scummy too...

I may or may not switch my vote once I hear Finner's defense.

[zipperflesh]

Unvote. Vote: tvellalot

Stalling game is stalling.

I'm gonna give Ibarra a pass, so we can hear from his replacement; the same is true for Sub.

@Finner, I expect more from you tomorrow, and barring a huge revelation from Thor I won't be voting to lynch you today.

[zipperflesh]

Lynches due to deadlines are the worst. Would prefer the Finner lynch to the tvellalot at the moment.

@zipperflesh - Day 1 huge revelations? You're being silly.

Well, you said you had more to say on Finner. Perhaps the stuff you didn't mention earlier in the day is enough swing my vote.

I think now is the time for you to lay your cards on the table though.

[zipperflesh]

So what was with that earlier suspicion of him? You know, the thing you would reveal at the end of the day.

[zipperflesh]

damn parenthesis...

can you direct me to where this occurred?

[zipperflesh]

Look up four posts.

No, I mean in thread evidence proving he was avoiding commentary. In other words, show proof of his lack of action during the early parts of the day when you first mentioned he was scummy for not doing something.

[zipperflesh]

Thats interesting, but you mentioned this first in #31 after Finner had answered your questioning. It wasn't until #33 where I began questioning you on your reasons for finding Finner suspicious, reasons you still haven't resolved to tell us since this accusation actually occurred after you originally noted your suspicions. What I want to know is, what did Finner do prior #31 to spark your suspicions of him?

[zipperflesh]

Really? Seems like a contradiction from what you said back then:

My Finner suspicion has nothing to do with his 'trap' questions. How about you let me work my angles and if anything comes of it I will, as I said, explain the read.

You were letting on like you had something on Finner, but were afraid to reveal it when I first questioned you. Now we see that you had nothing at all. I wasn't defending Finner earlier in the day, I was attacking your baseless accusations against him. I was content to wait until you revealed you reasoning, since you made it appear that revealing early would be a bad idea, but now I know you were just blowing hot air.

Unvote. Vote: Thor

[zipperflesh]

The first sentence implies you had a plan, the second shows you didn't.

Scum often lay the base work for later cases by smearing a player early in the day. I'm always suspicious people who make an accusation without providing reasoning, which is why I was on your ass earlier, but when you said give you time I figured you might actually have been unto something. Scum can point back at these accusations later in the game as evidence that they had found scum. Its quite a common trick, and town is usually too lazy to go back and fact check during the later stages of the game. Even if they did, they wouldn't anything but a post where scum had called someone out for something, something that they are now bringing to the table.

That's exactly what you just did. You said Finner was suspicious, and you said you'd keep an eye on him. Now, near the end of the day you point back to that saying, "See thar! That's what I was talking about."

If you don't believe its an easy trick to fall for, just look at EI who completely went along with what you were saying without so much as batting an eye.

Also, claiming to be a total idiot doesn't mean you're not scum.

[zipperflesh]

Yeah, and I explicitly said what I was talking about too and even hinted at it quite strongly when you pressed me earlier in the day (something he Hasn't done, remember?)

Except that earlier we were talking about actions prior post #31, but now you are indicating that you find his actions post #31 to be scummy. Huge difference there.

I am well aware of what EI did. I do find it interesting. I don't find it indicative of alignment yet. If you think it implies something about either of our alignments feel free to speak up - but trying to convince people to vote your way, and voting the way other people are is just part of the game. There has to be a strategy behind the actions that upsets/pleases you for this to be a tell of anything.

If anything, I think it makes EI look like town. Although, I could be completely off... EI could be sneaky scum out witting both of us, but that's just paranoia. As it stands, EI is probably town accepting your case on Finner at face value.

I'll agree, but your scum plan suggests I'm a total idiot, and I disagree with that. The only way this works as *remotely* sensible is if tvellalot is my partner, and even then it'd make more sense for me to continue on the Subterfuge wagon which would be a lot easier to push through then trying to start up a Finner wagon at the end of the day. If tvellalot isn't my partner then I could have just lurked on SUbterfuge and let the lynch go through, or I could have supported it.

La sigh... I'll wade these waters if I must.

You never really attacked tvellalot, I mean you questioned him a little, but you left you vote on Sub until recently. How would it be easier for you to swing a lynch unto an inactive Sub over a marginally scummy tvellalot? It wouldn't, because we all know how hard it is to lynch an inactive who should be up for replacement. So, you switched to a Finner lynch since you had previously laid the ground work for his lynch, and this move also gave you the opportunity to bring up my defense of him to make me (the most recent person to vote tvellalot) look bad.

So, yes, you're manipulation of the Finner case does make sense logically from a standpoint of a Thor/tvellalot scum team.

Confirm Vote: Thor

[zipperflesh]

Hey, don't make me out to be a helpless confused damsel (mansel?) to make your case on Thor look stronger. It's not like I didn't think about my vote.

No, not at all. What I mean is if a player such as you can fall for it, can't anybody? Sure, you thought about your vote in the context of the current situation, but did you go back and verify Thor's accusations?

Long story short, I think your case on Thor is mostly based on paranoia towards him. Plus, isn't calling a player suspicious early in the day and then voting for them later exactly what you're doing?

Except that I gave a reason for my early suspicious, whereas Thor never did. That is the pivotal difference, and had Thor expressed these feelings towards Finner when he first said he was suspicious of him, I wouldn't have batted an eye.

[zipperflesh]

Vote count has Earth voting twice.

[zipperflesh]

Unvote. Vote: tvellalot

I agree with you on that. This day is coming to a standstill.

We await your mighty hammer, Thor.

[zipperflesh]

Any update?

[zipperflesh]

Vote: Thor

Its pretty obvious to me that you were trying to swing the lynch off of tvellalot and unto Finner. I trust in my appraisal of the situation, and I have no reason to lynch anyone except Thor at this point.

[zipperflesh]

Unvote. Vote: EarthIntruder

Good work Iaonious.

[zipperflesh]

gg game