Newbie 1081: Showdown in Newbtown (Game Over, Mafia win)

[Zdenek]

Vote h3ll0

Good-bye.

[Zdenek]

WOOHOO! The thread is unlocked!
Anyways, I don't like RVS very much, so I'm not voting until I see an actual scummy post.

Hey, I just found one! Startransmission said why.

1. What's your Mafia experience?
2. What's your favorite band?
3. What role/alignment do you prefer?
4. Do you find it harder finding scum, or convincing other people that you've found scum (the latter assuming you correctly identified someone as scum)?

1. I've completed around 15 games.
2. I don't really have a favourite, but lately I've been listening to Bob Dylan quite a bit.
3. So far I think I enjoy VT the most.
4. I'll go with convincing others, but I could improve a lot in both areas.

*Sigh* If you insist:
Vote: alnkpa
for being the only person (I think) who has neither posted or been voted for.

LOL appeasement.

Unvote
Vote: Fatso

[Zdenek]

Hey, I just found one! Startransmission said why.

What are you referring to?

Already the RVS provides us an interesting post. Once could argue that Fatso not wanting to engage in the RVS is a sign that he wants to fly under the radar, that he wants to keep his hands clean until later in the game when perhaps a wagon is already built for him to jump on. That might be going a bit far, but it's an example of how the RVS can start dialogue.

I see RVS is pretty much over with the storm that's following Fatso's comment. I knew he was going to get jumped allll over for that. I certainly agree that sitting back and coasting through the RVS / RQS is bad news, since less input means less information we have to go on, but I can understand why he might not like RVS. I've been trying to get my husband to try the game, and he just does NOT understand how RVS can work or how it moves into scum discussion. I know he's not the only one that feels that way, and quite frankly everyone that hates random voting gets immediately pointed at. Scumtell - meh. It's just too common in a newbie game.

This post is coasting through RVS. You answer the questions, tell us about your playstyle, and then this, which is full of unnecessary filler, and you completely ignore the biggest problem with Fatso's play, the appeasement.

And Zdenek, you do realize you put me at L-2 over a disagreement in how the game should be played.

No, I put you at L-2 because your first post failed to move the game forward, and when you were called out on it, you gave up your previous stance and voted.

There really isn't much reasoning to my vote for you. I think RVS is as good as any strategy right now with the little amount of information we have to go on. However, my vote wasn't random because I felt you should of held your ground and not waiver when confronted. Again, not much to go on, so hopefully this will yield some info next day.

So you think we should quick-lynch Fatso?

[Zdenek]

One quick thing. This is really a matter of opinion, but I really feel the OMGUS vote is far scummier than the folding in to the RVS pressure.

I've never really found OMGUS to be a great scum-tell.

Let me get this straight: I said I didn't really want to RV, everyone wanted me to RV, I RVed, and now you're voting for me. Is that basically it? I never said I wouldn't RV if someone requested I do so, and yet that's what I'm being prosecuted for.

The fact that you didn't say that you wouldn't vote RV someone is irrelevant; caving to pressure is scummy because it shows that you are overly concerned with what people think.

Anyway, my gut says that Fatso is town, and I feel like pursuing something else.

Unvote
Vote Banana Stickers

[Zdenek]

Sarahfish's posts detailing how she feels on each player was fairly pointless and I could see scum feeling the need to make a post like that in order to try to appear helpful. I'm also concerned that she has no scum reads because it's often hard for scum to fake scum reads.

Sarah, obviously it's early in the day and making a choice based on three pages of info is difficult, but - if you had to place a hammering vote right now - where would it be? On a lurker? No lynch?
Everyone else is free to answer this, also.

I'd pick BS, I found her post scummy, plus she's been inactive.

Alnkpa, I think you misunderstood Bulvious' question. No lynch means voting for a no lynch. Of course I might have misunderstood your post.

Fair enough. While the pressure was probably unnecessary, there is nothing wrong with voting purpose of asking a question.

A small amount of advice: Don't do that. Your vote should indicate where your suspicion lies. Voting someone when you are asking them a question could indicate that you don't care about their answer, and will find them scummy regardless of what they say, which can lead to people being suspicious of you.

Lol, bad wording. What I meant to say was: They didn't even post a reason for voting whereas most people did

If you are talking about my vote on BS, I do have a reason. It was in one of my earlier posts.

Imitating? Maybe. Is that scummy? Not really. People imitate what they see others doing all the time, it's questionable as to whether or not she was even imitating.

I disagree. Imitating is scummy. Scum have to try to pretend to act like town, and what better way than to mimic townies. Needless to say, Sarah is not looking good in my eyes at the moment.

[Zdenek]

By the way, does anyone know what the point of setup no.1 would be? The RB can't do a darn thing.

The point is that if the scum have a role blocker, they don't know if there are no town power roles or both a cop and a doc.

[Zdenek]

Startransmission is scum for active lurking.

Unvote
Vote: startransmission

[Zdenek]

Zdenek, could you please consider reasoning your votes as such seemingly random voting seems rather scummy to me.

Only my first vote was random.

[Zdenek]

Sarah, why is there an 89 in your user name?

What are people's opinions of lynching the scummiest lurker?

Personally, I think it could be a good move. We will hopefully hit scum, but no matter what we eliminate someone who the scum won't kill and who we won't be able to get a read on during the game; in both newbie games I've been in so far, town has lost by mislynching a lurker in LYLO.

[Zdenek]

Out of the two, I would say if Lynchking doesn't post more soon I would lynch them but I wouldn't mind a BS lynch

Why? Even thought they've each posted little, I would say that BS is scummier.

Wow. This game has hit a wall. No activity whatsoever. Good for scum, bad for town.

I have some questions to ask tomorrow. Fatso's one to alnkpa above is a good start.

And your going to solve this problem by not asking your questions?

[Zdenek]

h3ll0, what do you think of the willingness to push a lurker lynch?

Wasn't it clear enough from his post just above yours?

Doesn't it seem odd that so many people would want to agree to that when it's usually a 50/50 sort of split in the average game? Normally you get SOME people contesting it - but there's none of that in this game. Could it be that two of the scum are the most ardent in pushing the most useless wagon and keeping that on-topic?

Made up statistics and casting a blanket of doubt over other players for no good reason considering how little time has actually passed.

Exactly. This "policy lynch' thing has done nothing but distracted all of us from actual scum-hunting. Especially considering that the lurker lynch policy has already been agreed on earlier when you asked your question on who to hammer.
...
Good catch. I want to see Alnpk's reaction to that.

Here we see obvious buddying of Bulvious by h3llo.

Zdenek gave a one line answer that is still not thoroughly describing enough for me.

Succinctness is pro-town. People will read my one line reasons, and if they don't understand them, they can ask about them. Bulking up a post with unnecessary ramblings is useless at best and anti-town at worst.

Why? Other than not voting, what has BS done that's worse?

I've already commented about what I didn't like about BS's first post. I'd even say that I'd lean town on Lynchking because of what I perceive as him making a post that accidentally suggested or could have been misinterpreted as suggesting that we lynch Fatso today with little discussion. I think scum would be more careful to avoid making a post like that.

Either you're not paying attention to what I'm saying or you're making a clumsy attempt to feign aggressiveness.

Then why don't you tell me what you are saying, because you said:

I have some questions to ask tomorrow.

and then you didn't say anything about things that happened prior to your previous post.

Anyway, it is doubtful that we'll be lynching the IC today.

Unvote
Vote h3ll0

[Zdenek]

I'm saying that this isn't the norm for me thus far - and how can you tell me that's wrong?

I didn't say it was wrong, just made up, and the problem was that you used a made up statistic to cast suspicion on numerous players.

Other than possible buddying, why are you voting for h3ll0?

Partly because of process of elimination.

I'd like to see people's thoughts in general on Bulvious (not if you've recently posted them of course).

I think that he's town because early on he agreed that you were probably town. This is a town-tell because it's a sacrifice for scum to say that they think that someone is town; it means that it will be harder for them to push their lynch. The only things that I haven't liked from him, I've recently pointed out.

I twice asked you to clarify the following:

Startransmission is scum for active lurking.

Twice I got no answer. Anything to say to that?

I've always thought that active lurking is a pretty good reason to vote someone. What more do you want, an essay about why active lurking is scummy, a wall quoting startransmission's posts that show him not contributing? I can do both, but I fail to see the point. You can go look at his ISO and judge for yourself.

While the question is valid, it is also redundant as the same question has been posted way earlier by Bulvious.

The question was different. The first one was what would you do if you had to hammer early. Whereas mine was about actually lynching a lurker at the end of the day.

Quite a fallacy here. Just because Lynchking made a potential scumslip does not make him pro-town.

I never said pro-town. Misrep. 1.

Fence-sitting much? Why are you afraid to push a case on StarTransmission simply because he is the IC?

I am not fence-sitting, but I know from experience that it probably won't happen. Misrep 2.

More votes on h3ll0 please.

[Zdenek]

I fully agree with about active lurking being a scumtell. Nevertheless you could have outlined his lurking in one or two sentences.

Ok. I dislike when people say that they have many comments or questions and then fail to provide them. I dislike when people feel the need to say that they will post later, and then when they do, they barely contribute to the game. Startransmission has done these things.

Run me through that process.

I wanted to pursue a lynch other than one of the two lurkers before the end of the day, so that takes LynchKing and Banana Stickers off the table for the time being.

I think Fatso is probably town because of his chattiness. I've explained why I think that you're probably town. So I don't want to lynch either of you today.

Sarahfish has done some scummy things and came under pressure for them. It's true that she's not scum hunting, but that could just be a sign of her newness. Also looking at her early and pointless evaluation of everyone, I am not seeing a scum motivation in it. If she was scum, I think she would have started working towards pushing a mislynch there. So my gut says town for now.

I think that Alnkpa's questions are genuine and that he is actually trying to determine people's alignments. So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for today too.

I don't think that pushing startransmission's lynch will be fruitful.

That leaves h3ll0, and he's scummy to boot.

Additionally, Zdenek, the first 'misrepresentation' you quoted isn't true at all. What h3ll0 said there seemed quite accurate.

Quote where I said that LynchKing was pro-town.

[Zdenek]

I think the reverse is more true. It is easier for scums to declare who they feel is town, as they know who is town.

Their possession of that knowledge does not give them any motivation to do it.

And what difference does that make? People who answered the first question will answer your question in the same exact manner.

How was I supposed to predict that? There is no reason to think that someone's willingness to lynch a lurker early in the game implies that they still would be later on.

You said that he has leaning town. How can one be leaning town if his actions are not pro-town in the slightest way?

The fact that I think he is town has to do with the fact that he was being careless, not because he did anything pro-town at all. I'm not saying that it is a strong town-tell.

h3ll0 is arguing for the sake of arguing. More rope here.

[Zdenek]

h3llo has made some good points that would suggest town(I like his first point in #185 especially)

Why does having the knowledge that someone is town, give scum motivation to call someone town?

Zdenek has said some untrue things and made a few mistakes

What?

[Zdenek]

You have said some things that, in my mind, are untrue or mistakes. I don't have time to go back and quote, but for instance, saying that h3llo was "obviously buddying" to Bulvious. I don't think this was the case at all. He was possibly buddying, not obviously buddying.

To me the buddying was obvious.

Zdenek, would you like to defense against Fatso's arguments? How?

Which one? If you mean the one that there is likely to be one scum in an argument between three people, then all I have to say is that his claim is ridiculous.

By declaring who is townie, they can avoid making cases on the said player. And when the said player is mislynched, they can just jump and mudsling on the players who made the case. This is good enough motivation, in my opinion.

Do you think that is what Bulvious was doing?

Either you are not paying attention to the game (1) to realise that no real development occurred between Bulvious question and your question (in other words, no one particularly scummy popped up), or that you are asking questions just for the sake of doing so(2). (1) means that you are playing badly, (2) means that you are active lurking. Which is it?

You are being obtuse. The two questions were different: I was actually advocating for a lurker lynch.

You mean to say that it is townish behaviour to be careless? This is bullshit. Both town and mafia can and will make mistakes. Lynchking making a mistake does not make him any more town then any other player.

I am not accusing LynchKing of making a mistake, I am just just saying that he said something that could be interpreted as scummy, and I suspect that scum would have avoided saying it. Could I be wrong about him? Of course. He's essentially posted nothing, but if it came down to lynching him or BS, I'd prefer BS.

Seriously? Am I suppose to stay quiet while you make your "case" on me?

No, but if you were town, you'd keep scum hunting, but instead you've given that up.

I still want more h3ll0 votes.

[Zdenek]

Ok. I dislike when people say that they have many comments or questions and then fail to provide them. I dislike when people feel the need to say that they will post later, and then when they do, they barely contribute to the game. Startransmission has done these things.

Either you're terribly ignorant, trying to get a rise out of me, or a liar.

Since startransmission is accusing me of lying about his activity and promises of activity. Here is an outline of his first 20 posts of the game.

Post  #0   » Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:28 pm: A reasonable first post.
Post  #1   » Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:42 pm: Asks and answers RQS questions.
Post  #2   » Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:02 am: Wishes BS a happy birthday.
Post  #3   » Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:34 pm: Theory discussion of RVS, and talks about the end of RVS.
Post  #4   » Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:35 pm Corrects a mistake of alnkpa
Post  #5   » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:39 am: "Late night at work, will post in the morning. Much comments."
Post  #6   » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:47 am: says that Fatso's OMGUS vote is far scummier than folding under RVS pressure, and that he doesn't think that Fatso is scummy enough to warrant the wagon going further.

Note: This is essentially his first contribution to the game outside of RVS, so while he might seem like he's been active having made 7 posts. They've been almost contentless up until now.

Post  #7   » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:13 pm: repeats his first point from Post #6. Tells us that all the comments he was going to make have "kinda been made."

Post  #8   » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:44 pm:"Hey guys, long day ahead of me, will post later today."
Post  #9   » Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:18 am: "Considering the advantages they already possess, no, not really. Keep them guessing."
Post  #10   » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:14 pm: Tells us about his work schedule, and promises content.
Post  #11   » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:23 pm: more about work.

Note: In post 8 he felt the need to tell us that he would be posting later in the day, and after that he had a comment to make about the setup and told us about his work. Also, he has essentially said nothing since post 6.

Post  #12   » Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:17 am: He is suspicious of SarahFish, and makes some reasonable points against her, but he left his vote on the inactive Banana Sitickers.
Post  #13   » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:13 am: He reminds us that his vote is still on BS, and tells us that if she continues to be inactive, then his vote on the slot will cease to be random, whether or not there is a replacement.
Post  #14   » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:28 am: Read the rules.
Post  #15   » Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:22 pm: use the preview button, pressures SF, still doesn't vote.
Post  #16   » Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:12 am: Losing patience with LK and BS.
Post  #17   » Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:29 pm: More SF business.
Post  #18   » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:56 am: Here he feels the need to answer a question that I asked to SF about why there is an 89 in her user name, policy lynching discussion and talk about the lack of moderating.
Post  #19   » Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:44 am:

Wow. This game has hit a wall. No activity whatsoever. Good for scum, bad for town.

I have some questions to ask tomorrow. Fatso's one to alnkpa above is a good start.

Up until outside of RVS, his contributions have been a little pressure on Fatso, in #6 and a soft attack on SaraFish scattered though the rest. In order to deal with his accusation that I was lying, I'd like to draw attention to Post 5, where he said that he had many comments, but then didn't provide any of them. But more importantly to Post 8, where he felt the need to tell us that he planned to post later in the day, but then didn't contribute anything of substance until post 12, more than 48 hours later.

I'd like to point out the following exchange:

I have some questions to ask tomorrow.

Then when you post again, you say nothing about anything that happened earlier, and you try to explain it away with:

I say I'm going to ask questions the next day, and you attack me for not asking them immediately. The keyword in my post was tomorrow. And when tomorrow came, I asked my questions.

as though you could predict the future about there being things available for you to ask questions about. This by the way is where you said that you have questions and then later it turned out that you didn't have any.

So I'm not one of the two lurkers now?

I distinguish between lurking and active lurking.

Hrm. And where has that pressure come from? Who has been engaging and questioning her?

Most of the people active in the game, certainly you. But you never voted her despite presenting a reasonable case; certainly one that if you actually believed it should have led you take your vote off the inactive BS.

Another reason startransmission is scummy is his failure to comment about h3ll0's recent play in his catch-up posts.

No, but if you were town, you'd keep scum hunting, but instead you've given that up.

Yeap. You just keep on mudslinging me.

Oh really, show me where you pointed out that someone was scummy since I voted you outside of RVS.

Post 41 - His very last comment seems a little bit like fearmongering to me. Zd (is it cool if I call you Zd?) is an SE player and maybe he knows better than I do, but I really feel like lynchkings comment there was simply trying to justify what was clearly a pressure vote. I really don't see an SE player honestly considering that a push for a quicklynch.

It was early and I wanted to see how he would react.

Post 162 - More fearmongering in accusing h3ll0 of buddying up to Bulvious. They agree on one point and that mean's they are buddying?

No, it was the manner of the interaction. Let me walk you through it:

Bulvious asked him a question that he had essentially just answered:

h3ll0 said:

I'm still not sold on a lurker lynch at this point of time, seeing that we still got 11 more days to the deadline (which could be extended). Sitting around and agreeing to the policy lynch does not help progress the game either.

Bulvious asks:

h3ll0, what do you think of the willingness to push a lurker lynch? Doesn't it seem odd that so many people would want to agree to that when it's usually a 50/50 sort of split in the average game? Normally you get SOME people contesting it - but there's none of that in this game. Could it be that two of the scum are the most ardent in pushing the most useless wagon and keeping that on-topic?

Notice that Bulvious asks a couple of questions there. Someone who was honestly answering would have responded to them. However, h3ll0's response is:

Exactly. This "policy lynch' thing has done nothing but distracted all of us from actual scum-hunting. Especially considering that the lurker lynch policy has already been agreed on earlier when you asked your question on who to hammer.

He agrees with something that Bulvious said, it's not clear with what, and goes on to reiterate his point from his previous post. It's simply mindless agreement with nothing in particular.

Then in the same post he congratulates Bulvious on a "good catch" regarding Alnkpa.

Workdawg: SE is not a teaching role, and since you disagree with nearly everything that I think, that is probably a good thing.

As an SE player, I would have expected a lot more from him. A well constructed defense, and case for that matter.

What exactly are you asking me to defend myself against?

As far as cases go, my thoughts are in my posts, you can read them there.

Explain his meanings and what he feels are scumtells and what aren't.

What would you like me to explain?

@Zd: If you think ST is scummy, then why not present a case that indicates that? Between ST (who you previously voted for) and h3ll0 (who you are currently voting for) who do you feel is most scummy? If the former, then why not post your case? If the latter, then what has changed your mind?

startransmission's activity has picked up, which makes me feel better about him now, but I don't like that he didn't feel that h3ll0's recent play was worth commenting on. Since you seem to want explanations, scum know who is scum and town and don't have any reason to try to determine people's alignments, so they will ignore arguments between town essentially because they don't care what the outcome is. They will also avoid commenting about arguments involving one of their scum buddies to avoid creating connections with them.

My issues with h3ll0 are recent and easy to find in my ISO, and I would prefer his lynch to st's.

[Zdenek]

As an SE player, I would have expected a lot more from him. A well constructed defense, and case for that matter.

What exactly are you asking me to defend myself against?

I repeat.

Zdenek, is this the case you've been hoping for to get your bead on ST? You failed to give a case previously "just cos it wouldn't have a result."

It was an explanation of why I accused him of active lurking earlier, and some other things.

I don't particularly like that chkflip made a fairly convincing argument against st, seems to still be suspicious of him, but unvoted simply because st defended himself adequately.

Alnkpa is looking worse to me.

Seeing this conversation almost came to a halt, I'd like to pose some questions in order to let it stay alive.
Fatso, do you really think that you can project from a real world game of mafia to this board? In which way?
H3llo, do you agree with Fatso that one of the three mentioned by him (which includes you) might be scum? Who? Why?
Zdenek, would you like to defense against Fatso's arguments? How?

At the time of his post, conversation had not come to a halt (there had been a few hours without posts). He asks questions that have little to do with people's alignments and are generally pointless, and doesn't offer up his own thoughts. He asks me to defend against Fatso's arguments, but never clarifies exactly what he is asking about.

In the moment I don't have any new evidence against you. Though I don't have any new scumreads on anyone either (I confessed in my first post that I'm bad at scumreading) so I'll just let my vote linger on you considering there doesn't seem to be a wagon on you.

Welcome to the replacements chkflip and workdawg, I got a question for you: Do you already have things that catched your eye? Maybe even things that none of us noticed yet?

He lets he vote sit somewhere useless (he clearly knows that it is useless since he points out that there isn't a wagon on Fatso), and he isn't trying to find suspects.

From earlier, he had one ok reason to be suspicious of Fatso (that Fatso seemed sensitive; although it's up for debate whether Fatso was actually being sensitive), but he additionally accused Fatso of being scum for posting several times in a row, which is needless bulking up of a case against someone:

Well Fatso, until now I didn't have you on my personal scum list, but now as you being quite sensitive about some accusations made against you I do. Although you were rather talkative the whole game you now seem to exaggerate. So many consecutive posts seem rather scummy to me. Why did you need to have 3 posts in a row to answer some questions?
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Fatso

[Zdenek]

You have an ISO on me? Which post are you referring to? All your points against me are pretty spread out from what I see.

I was referring to people reading my posts in isolation.

Workdawg, you seem to be saying that you don't like that I don't explain myself and that I haven't defended myself, but can't point to any examples where I've failed to do so.

He didn't wrote more than two lines of text most of the time as you can check all by yourself since it's quite obvious. And now he's so antsy to react with a big fat wall to some minor questions? That now aroused suspicion at me. First he is very concise and now he just won't stop talking?

You complained earlier that I didn't explain myself, and now when I do you say that it's scummy.

As far as I can tell, no one on my wagon has presented a single rational point against me.

[Zdenek]

You have addressed a few of those points, and I was less suspicious of you, but I'm not so sure now considering how willing you are to simply dismiss everything with a single line; "no one has any rational points against me." Are you saying the things brought up are invalid and were not reasons to be suspicious at the time?

In reference to your ISO 3.

It's not scummy to pressure someone for giving a poor reason to pressure vote someone else early in the game.

It is not scummy to point out when one player buddies with another.

Two players disagreeing over what constitutes a town-tell is not scummy.

h3ll0 was being obtuse.

No one had presented anything like a case against me, so your claim that I hadn't sufficiently defended myself up to that point against a more substantial case is bizarre and further evidence for that is given by the fact you have failed to point out an instance where I haven't adequately defended my self.

I didn't actually say that "making long posts is "useless at best and anti-town at worst." I said that "Bulking up a post with unnecessary ramblings is useless at best and anti-town at worst."

For what it worth, did explain my st vote, but people have to read the thread and decide for themselves what they think for themselves.

Is there anything I've missed?

DMSIS is on my list of acceptable lynches for today.

[Zdenek]

I am thinking about the cases on Fatso and Bulvious, but I still think that they are both town. There are certainly points that can be made against each of them, so I am not discounting the cases entirely. I'll admit that with Fatso it's my gut that says town, but with Bulvious, I think is overall play is pro-town and that his style of play will make it possible to get continuing reads on him.

Bulvious, ignoring h3ll0's activity levels, do you think h3ll0 is playing differently in this game?

My vote was the first one on him, and it ended RVS. I suppose Zdenek's previous statement (or maybe it was Chk?) saying it's harmful to end RVS quickly could imply bad things for me here, but really, I felt like the quicker we used our time to get onto more meaningful votes, the more we would learn before the day ended with (hopefully) a fruitful lynch.

It was chk.

All 4 of these are pretty much a difference of opinion/interpretation.
...
Note that I never said any of those were scum-tells. Just things I found worth writing down.

Then including those points when you are trying to explain why you think that someone is scummy, is an example of bulking up a post with needless ramblings.

I might even say that it appeared as though you were grasping for straws trying to make him others look guilty (or innocent in the case of your supposed town-tells).

town-tells by their nature are weak because scum can fake them, on the other hand there certainly is a case on h3ll0; it's below.

DMSIS is drmyshottyizsik

Since people seem to think that the h3ll0 case is nonexistant, here you go:

Arguing for the sake of arguing:

h3ll0 went on and on about me asking the question about how people would feel about lynching a lurker at the end of the day, and said that it was the same question as the one Bulvious asked:

it is also redundant as the same question has been posted way earlier by Bulvious.

This of course was wrong, and h3ll0 knew it. In fact Bulvious explained to Fatso in particular exacty what his question was asking:

And we both know that of course, but that's not what my question is asking for. It's asking if the deadline were tomorrow and you had the vote that was end-all be-all, what would you pick? I'm not asking you to actually go about that course of action because given the alotted time we have, we are in no rush at the moment.

Why this is scummy: Fatso was just looking for something to complain about in order to be active in the game. He wasn't scum hunting and he wasn't making a genuine attack on anyone. Moreover, not even his complaint was genuine.

Just to be completely clear about h3ll0's BS in this part of the discussion, here was h3ll0's response to Bulvious:

Well, if you put it that way, yeah. I would hammer the lurker.

Here is what he said after I asked my question:

I'm still not sold on a lurker lynch at this point of time, seeing that we still got 11 more days to the deadline (which could be extended). Sitting around and agreeing to the policy lynch does not help progress the game either.

Here is what he said during our argument:

And what difference does that make? People who answered the first question will answer your question in the same exact manner.

Not even he answered the questions in the same manner.

Softly attacking Fatso:

Jumpiness noted. What do you mean you spoke too soon?

Why it is scummy: Scum want to take safe positions, so they will softly attack someone. For instance by pointing out something that they did, but not necessarily calling them scum for it, see how other people react, and then move their vote/attack more aggressively if the conditions seem favorable.

There's the buddying with Bulvious, which has already been talked about.

Why it is scummy: it benefits scum to ingratiate themselves to town because if town's people like them, they won't push for their lynches. However, if Bulvious and h3ll0 have a relationship from a previous game, this might not be as bad as it was before.

As soon as I voted him, he became purely defensive, and immediately attacked me by misrepresenting things that I said.

Lying about his actions:

Oh really, show me where you pointed out that someone was scummy since I voted you outside of RVS.

Er, Sarahfish? Though, yeah. I really need to go do some more scumhunting.

There is not a single reference to Sarahfish in your ISO since my vote on you. Moreover, you have had nothing to say about workdawg.

[Zdenek]

But seriously, what was the point in pushing for a lurker lynch when we were almost 2 weeks from deadline?

I've already explained this, and now you are scummily trying to muddy the waters with pointless questions.

What he did was slightly suspicious, but it wasn't anything near scummy behaviour.

It was suspicious, but not scummy, as if there is some other sort of suspicious behaviour?

Your first case on me was based on the process of elimination. As your what you considered town-tells were, to me, weak and illogical, it was therefore necessary for me to question these ideas.

and stop scum hunting?

Actually, yes, I would say so. In the last game, h3ll0 had a case, maintained and pursued that case, althroughout the game. This game... I don't really see that from him. In fact, I can't think (off the top of my head) of a great case he's made this game, or has attempted to make.

Good, then let's lynch him.

I'd like to hear more from Shotty.

FWIW, my vote is still on Zd simply because I'm not COMPLETELY convinced he's innocent, and not having my vote on anyone is a waste of my vote.

You have no other suspects? You disagree with all the other cases that have been presented?

Zdenek, what did you make changing your style of posts

I don't think that their style changed. They got longer, but that is only because there was more to say as the day went on. Also many people were asking me to explain myself more, so I did.

Post 26: Still pressuring on Zdenek. Still no answer btw.

I hadn't posted in between your previous post and this one, and your accusing me of ignoring your question?

[Zdenek]

Show me where you answered your reasoning for pushing a lurker lynch. I flipped through your ISO and did not find one.

What are people's opinions of lynching the scummiest lurker?

Personally, I think it could be a good move. We will hopefully hit scum, but no matter what we eliminate someone who the scum won't kill and who we won't be able to get a read on during the game; in both newbie games I've been in so far, town has lost by mislynching a lurker in LYLO.

Who do you think the rest of the town should look at when I flip town?

st, workdawg, alnkpa are pretty good bets.

I just noticed this little quote from a couple days ago and it seems interesting to me even though no one else has mentioned it.

I did.

Apparently it's a scum tell to mention something someone did, but not call them scum for it? Doesn't he do that a lot himself?

No I haven't.

h3ll0's recent frustration finally gives me some sort of reason to think that he could be town, also there seems to be little support for his lynch, so in the time between now and the whenever the new deadline is, I want to try something new.

Unvote
Vote workdawg

Why: we've had two people playing in that slot, sarahfish and workdawg. Sarahfish's play was pathetic, perhaps scummy, and I won't say more about her.

workdawg has been focused on me for literally no reason since his entry into the game and is accusing me of things, an then when I ask him to provide examples of them, he can't. This level of dishonesty is particularly scummy and there is more scum motivation behind it than in h3ll0's cognitive dissonance in his argument with me over the should we lynch a lurker question. As far as someone trying to get their foot in the door of practically every lynch goes, I think he is definitely more guilty of this than everyone else: there is mine, obviously, but also,

Lurkers'

About lynching a lurker (active or not), I tend to agree with this policy,

Bulvious'

I reviewed your ISO and I barely see any mention of Alnpka. You say that he's actively lurking almost a week ago (#153), but don't mention him again. Is that the extent of "[your] reasons posted before"? I don't disagree necessarily disagree with you. He's asked a few decent questions, but he has been one of the less active players for sure. This smells to me like just jumping on Zd coattails.

Fatso's

-chkflip's case against Fatso seems, appropriate...

alnkpa's

I'm inclined to agree with Buvlios' analysis here.

All of these stances have been very wishy-washy, making it possible for him to back down on them and adjust his reads at will.

[Zdenek]

I can find a couple instances of you "softly attacking" people

Quotes or didn't happen.

I left off the context of your quotes to show that you agreed with the lynches, adding it back in just makes you appear more wishy-washy, which by the way, is the main reason you are scum.

I also find it interesting that you make a case on me based almost entirely on something that I freely admitted I was doing (being a little bit wishy-washy).

Pointing out that you are doing something scummy does not excuse it.

[Zdenek]

So you think we should quick-lynch Fatso?
...
Made up statistics and casting a blanket of doubt over other players for no good reason considering how little time has actually passed.
...
Here we see obvious buddying of Bulvious by h3llo.

And those are the ones I found with just a quick skim over your ISO.

The first one was me fishing for a reaction, and as far as the other two go, I think I made it pretty clear that I thought they were actually scummy. I've brought up the issue with Bulvious' comment a couple of times and I attacked h3ll0 because of the buddying; they were not soft attacks in the least.

The second wasn't even an agreement on the case.
The third one, I felt that the fact that someone was pressuring him seems appropriate, not that I agreed that he was scum.
The fourth one, Bulvious' analysis seems to be accurate to me, but I still feel like alnpka is giving off more of a newb vibe than scum vibe. What's wrong with that?

You took a stances that you could easily back down from (as you are doing) while still agreeing with the cases.

Mudslinging and grapsing at straws again.

BS.

Your play this entire game has been to consistently take safe positions and wishy-washy stances.

[Zdenek]

Alnkpa's recent V/LA is annoying, but it's not a good reason to think that he's scum.

If needed, I will vote alnkpa for us to get a lynch today, but I'd really like people to comment on what makes them think workdawg is town.

To recap what I think of WD:
I think there is scum intent in most of his play. He's taken convenient and wishy-washy stances on everything. In my opinion he hasn't been scum-hunting, and his attack on me was pathetic; he either can't find or can only find poor examples of everything he accused me of and bulked up his "case" with pointless statements that even he agrees are things that are not scummy.

[Zdenek]

Though, he's also offered little to no explanation on a good bit of things, such as much of his early case against ST.

My early vote on him was for active lurking and I detailed ST's first 20 or so posts earlier, and explained exactly why I said he was active lurking. What more do you want?

Zd has been reluctant to post cases against both h3ll0 and startransmission until getting pressure from us to do so, despite voting for both of them. Maybe HE was trying taking a convenient stance against them, casting a vote and hoping to just claim it's a pressure vote later on if needed.

Regarding st, I thought his active lurking was obvious, and would have been obvious to anyone reading the thread. No one has debated my analysis of his early posts. I find it bewildering that people were unwilling to go and look for themselves after I pointed it out. Regarding h3ll0, most of what I had to say about him could be found easily by reading me in isolation. The accusation that I might have been trying to cast a convenient vote and later say that it was a pressure vote is BS. First of all, because pressure voting isn't scummy, and second of all because that is clearly not what I was doing because I provided cases against each of them.

He has consistently twisted and taken quotes out of context in an attempt to make things that I've said sound scummy when they were not, and those things are pretty much the entirety of his case against me.

Let's go over everything one more time.

The essential problems with workdawg are: he tries to get his foot in the door on almost every lynch and takes wishy-washy stances that he can easily back down from. I will not reiterate the issues with his case on me here.

1. Lynching lurkers.

About lynching a lurker (active or not), I tend to agree with this policy, but ONLY if there isn't a consensus otherwise. If it comes down to it, lynching a lurker is better than a no-lynch simply because an even number of players is usually a bad place for town to be, IMO.

He's in favor of lynching a lurker, unless there is a consensus otherwise. Asking for a consensus on a day one lynch is an impossible standard. It allows him to back away from whatever stance he is taking at the time of the lynch and move his vote to whomever is lurking. If you think this is just a poor choice of wording, he reiterates this opinion later:

If there is an obvious scum target to lynch, then of course we want to lynch him, but if not then I have no problem lynching a lurker. What sense would it make to lynch a lurker if there was an obv-scum to lynch instead?

2. Fatso.

As far as my read on Fatso, my initial read was very newb town. Honestly, he reminded me a little bit of myself in my first game (Newbie 1052), extra concerned about appearances, making some pretty basic mistakes, etc. He still comes off pretty newb to me, though I will say having looked a little bit at his meta (this is his 3rd game) I'm less inclined to say how town he is.

After chkflip presented his case, his newb-town read of Fatso weakens. This is a very convenient change heart, he offers up a review of Fatso's meta for it, but fails to provide any details.

-chkflip's case against Fatso seems, appropriate... as he hasn't been subjected to that thorough of a case yet. I still think he's holding up okay and his responses seem genuine to me. I already mentioned the personal attacks...

Here he agrees with the case, but in such a soft manner that he can easily back down from his agreement if needed.

3. Alnkpa

I'm inclined to agree with Buvlios' analysis here. His post analysis is pretty accurate. Alnpka has been less active than most of us, and his posts usually don't contain any information that really helps. It's his first game though, and I still get a newbie vibe from him, like he doesn't really know how to scumhunt. During the back and forth, alnpka defends himself by quoting posts he's made that contain various questions to people and such. He seems genuine though and I get the impression that he just isn't really sure what he's supposed to be doing.

Bulvious analysis led him to vote for Alnkpa and push for his lynch today. To say that you agree with the analysis is an agreement that Alnkpa is scummy, and the rest of the post is just wishy-washiness over this stance, and whenever you like you could simply say that you agreed with the analysis and vote for Alnkpa.

4. Bulvious.

I reviewed your ISO and I barely see any mention of Alnpka. You say that he's actively lurking almost a week ago (#153), but don't mention him again. Is that the extent of "[your] reasons posted before"? I don't disagree necessarily disagree with you. He's asked a few decent questions, but he has been one of the less active players for sure. This smells to me like just jumping on Zd coattails.

Here you are clearly making an accusation of Bulvious, which is getting your foot in on the door of his lynch, which is what I suggested you were doing.

[Zdenek]

Are you saying that sheeping is a rock solid scum-tell, Zd?

No.

Anyway, there clearly isn't the support for a WD lynch today, and we need to get one so

Unvote
Vote Alnkpa

[Zdenek]

Kard, we have one day to get to a lynch. If there was more support for a workdawg lynch, I'd have left my vote there, but I've been pushing that since we got the extension, and I am not seeing the necessary support for it, and I am not having my vote somewhere useless this close to the deadline. Also, this is not the first time I've mentioned him, and I've thought that he's been scummy for awhile, see my ISO 17 for instance. Also it is very detrimental for town to no lynch on the first day.

chkflip, what exactly was wrong with my vote? If you think WD is scummy, I'll happily get back on that wagon, but without the support for it, with one day before the deadline, I do not see any point in letting my vote just sit there.

[Zdenek]

Unvote
Vote Workdawg

[Zdenek]

Startrans is scum because of his inactivity near the deadline, and should be lynched tomorrow.

As far as WD's case goes:

His initial vote on ST is for active lurking. He later comments that he doesn’t seem the point in making a case for his vote because we are able to read his ISO ourselves. He’s essentially asking us to do the work for him. A convenient way to place a vote for a scummy action, without actually pointing out that action.

I never asked anyone to do anything for me. I knew i could provide details, but I didn't see the point since it was so fucking obvious, and I did point out the action. Everyone is going to read things differently, and it seems scummy to me to ask everyone else to make his case for him.

If I read the case and point out specific things that I find scummy, he can simply hop in and say “That’s exactly what I’m talking about.” He doesn’t have to actually even make a case against someone this way. As opposed to sheeping, I’d call this sheep herding… trying to get others to make a case for him so that he can sheep them but seem like he is leading instead.

The first sentencce is stupid speculation, since I never did that, and saying someone is active lurking is making a case. Cases don't have to be walls of text.

That leaves Bulvious (whom he doesn’t comment on at all)

Yes I did.

I think that he's town because early on he agreed that you were probably town. This is a town-tell because it's a sacrifice for scum to say that they think that someone is town; it means that it will be harder for them to push their lynch.

(yes, falsely. Zd said he would lean town on Lynchking BECAUSE OF A POTENTIAL SCUMSLIP in ISO 10.)

Saying that you are leaning town on someone is absolutely different from saying they are pro-town. If you don't see that, you shouldn't be playing.

After this point, they go back and forth a little bit, but there still really isn’t any case here. Just many disagreements about various things.

H3ll0's argument about the talk about the lurker lynch was obviously disingenuous, since he did exactly the thing that he later argued would never happen. He was buddying with Bulvious over it, and using it as a way to contribute without scum hunting.

[Zdenek]

I will claim if there is a willing hammer.
Bulvious, using relational tells before there are any flips is pointless.
CHKflip's reads are all over the place.

[Zdenek]

I'm sorry for not being able to claim and I know I should have claimed earlier. I really thought I was going to be able to get online in time.