Mini 648 - Shytown - [Game Over]

[Nudude]

Vote: The Pope's Tiara

We'll beat the scum through the cunning and insightful application of reason and logic and whatnot, not by listening to spiritual advisors.

My runes told me this would happen.

Who is this town's tarot card/palm reader? I need a consultation, STAT!

Isn't that supposed to be a sin? I would have expected you'd know that, being The Pope's Tiara and all!

*Tries to pull your mask off scooby doo style, but only succeeds in making red hand marks on your face*

.........heh.......sorry about that =(

[Nudude]

vote?

maybe I was right the first time...

If you insist....

OMGUS

Vote: Untitled

Sorry mate, I couldn't resist =D

[Nudude]

PARITY = EQUALITY

Thinking everyone is equal in Mafia is the enemy. This the random voting don't think too much. You might blow a fuse.

Exactly, like I COULD say that because Greasy Spot's avatar is from Assassins Creed, a game where you have to blend in with the masses, and kill people without trying to get caught, is a little similar to a scum role in mafia, where you have to blend in with the masses and kill people without trying to get caught, that he's mighty suspicious.....

Or the he voted for me because I placed a vote, as opposed to the person who requested that I make that vote, that he's mighty suspicious.....

Or (and what I suspect to be the truth) is that you don't take anything on the first page seriously =D

[Nudude]

Unvote

Vote: The Pope's Tiara

Your last post smelt very bad.

[Nudude]

Sorry for the double post, I just wanted to get Untitled off L-1 ASAP.

I'd have to say, on some level, Imaginality makes some sense. I can't see any reason that justifies TPT putting Untitled at L-1, especially this early in the game, and TPT's reasoning is weak.

You can justify all you like, but putting someone at L-1 on the second page runs the risk of a fast - lynch occuring, and given the small number of players I can't see how that possibly benefits town.

[Nudude]

I think molestatgazer is doing a fantastic job of brushing aside TPT's L-1 vote, while making everyone else in the game look suspicious.

[Nudude]

I think molestatgazer is doing a fantastic job of brushing aside TPT's L-1 vote, while making everyone else in the game look suspicious.

[Nudude]

Sorry for the double post, still tryingto get the hang of my iPhone =D

[Nudude]

I find it odd that you would want to keep everyone on the same number of votes. pressuring players is good for the town.

This is a valid point. Given the deadline, a little pressure doesn't hurt anyone. Look at the discussion we're making based off the pressure being applied to untitled himself =D.

If anything, I'd say molestargazer was the one who became over defensive over a random vote:

parity is the enemy.

<<

raises beer mug

>>
HERE! HERE!
<<

takes a swig

>>

OK, I'm just going to dissect this for my own benefit.
1. I vote for Untitled in the random stage of the game, with the 'reasoning' that he hadn't had a vote on him yet.
2. He returns the vote, saying equality is the enemy. This seems to be referring to the fact that I was trying to make everything equal by giving everyone a vote. (Ironically, he helped 'parity' by voting myself, who hadn't had a vote until then!)
3. Greasy Spot supports Untitled, agreeing that 'parity is the enemy'.

Does anyone else find that a little bit odd?

Just my perspective, but from what I could tell most, if not everyone else, was still in random vote mode. There's nothing wrong with pressure, but pressuring someone for something you initiated does look a tad suspicious.

I'm also finding the leaps of logic being made by some people to write off TPT as not simply inexperienced, but actually pro-town, only being outdone by the leaps of logic being made to make people look scummy based off barely 3 pages.

[Nudude]

This is a valid point. Given the deadline, a little pressure doesn't hurt anyone. Look at the discussion we're making based off the pressure being applied to untitled himself =D.

I've replied to that point already..

Sorry, I missed your reply to that. I think your first random vote was exactly that =)

If anything, I'd say molestargazer was the one who became over defensive over a random vote:

Just my perspective, but from what I could tell most, if not everyone else, was still in random vote mode. There's nothing wrong with pressure, but pressuring someone for something you initiated does look a tad suspicious.

We had to leave random vote mode sometime. I just wanted to get proper discussion started.

Nothing wrong with that, but my issue is that one of your main points against untitled is that he became very defensive over a random vote.

As best I can tell, his over-reaction was saying "Parity is the enemy", and putting a vote on you. To me, it just felt like a random excuse for a random vote, and it doesn't feel to me to be over-defensive. In fact, I feel the first over-defensive post came from you, with post 18:

parity is the enemy.

<<

raises beer mug

>>
HERE! HERE!
<<

takes a swig

>>

OK, I'm just going to dissect this for my own benefit.
1. I vote for Untitled in the random stage of the game, with the 'reasoning' that he hadn't had a vote on him yet.
2. He returns the vote, saying equality is the enemy. This seems to be referring to the fact that I was trying to make everything equal by giving everyone a vote. (Ironically, he helped 'parity' by voting myself, who hadn't had a vote until then!)
3. Greasy Spot supports Untitled, agreeing that 'parity is the enemy'.

Does anyone else find that a little bit odd?

I just think it's a bit strange that you find this behaviour suspicious when, from my perspective, you were the one that initiated it.

I'm also finding the leaps of logic being made by some people to write off TPT as not simply inexperienced, but actually pro-town, only being outdone by the leaps of logic being made to make people look scummy based off barely 3 pages.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.
You're trying to say that you find it odd people writing TPT off as inexperienced because we're also trying to find scum?
If that is the case, then surely you can't be complaining that we're trying to find scum. The thread being at 3 pages is not an excuse not to try and find scum.
I honestly think that TPT is simply inexperienced, which I believe is the reason for his strange (For want of a better word) post attacking Untitled. That's all there is to it.

Saying that TPT could simply be inexperienced is a fair and valid point, and definetely not grounds to stop hunting other scum. My concern is that some people seem to be leaning toward TPT being pro-town. While it is entirely possible that he is simply inexperienced town, it is also entirely possible he is inexperienced scum, and I can't see how people can be sure either way, which is why I feel concerned when people say they lean towards him being pro-town.

I'm still not entirely convinced his L-1 vote was completely a mistake, and I feel his lack on contribution so far also unsetteling. Time is against town, and on the side of scum, and I don't want to give TPT a free pass because he lurks while the town points fingers at each other.

I'm keeping my vote on TPT for the moment. I'm still not sure if you have an agenda, or you are being a good townie. For me, either is possible at this point, so I'm not going to vote for you just yet =)

[Nudude]

EBWOP:

Just in case the last bit of my post was unclear:

I'm keeping my vote on TPT for the moment. I'm still not sure if molestargazer has an agenda or is being a good townie.

[Nudude]

The Pope's Tiara

- I think his post attacking Untitled was more inexperienced than scum (As darkdude has said), and is being a little over-agressive. So far, I can't really judge, but if I had to pick, I'd say Pro-Town.

I also had the impression you had as well, but upon rereading your stance has simply been that it's a null tell, which I agree with.

[Nudude]

Righto, after having a bit of a re-read, I feel like darkdude and molestargazer are being good townies. That is, of course, subject to change, but for the moment what they are doing is helping the town.

Untitled I'm not sure about yet. He's being asked lots of questions, and so far none of his answers have really leaped out as me as being scummy, but I'm going to be keeping a close eye on where this goes.

TPT and imaginality, however, are setting off my scumdar at the moment. We've already discussed my thoughts regarding TPT, and while we feel that his L-1 vote could have been simply inexperience, his continued silence isn't helping his case.

Imaginality is rubbing me the wrong way. He makes a long, well thought out, and dare I say it, beautifully worded post casting suspicioun on myself and TPT.

This was his next post:

My post was one part parodying The Pope's Tiara's post, one part deliberately reading a lot into a little in order to make a case, and two parts believing that, while my case was certainly exaggerated for effect, it was also believable and potentially even true, at least, from the posts up to then, they looked as likely to be scum as any and more so than most.

I do think that it's unlikely all three players who were voting Untitled at that time (molestargazer, Nudude and The Pope's Tiara) are town.

Untitled's play didn't and hasn't seemed scummy enough to justify three votes against him. And The Pope's Tiara's post was a convenient one if he/she is scum - putting Untitled onto L-1, with a post that on the one hand might tempt a weak player to hammer, but on the other hand, he/she can easily dismiss as "Well, I was obviously joking with that post, no-one should have taken it seriously," if required.

The ensuing posts have been interesting to read but it's late here (in NZ) and I need sleep so I'll comment on those in eight hours or so from now.

The bolded part caught my eye. On one hand, it's not unreasonable to draw that conclusion, but on the other hand, it could be an attempt to sow confusion. In itself, I'd say that it's just a townie voicing his thoughts.

However, when you consider the length and depth of his first post compared to the fairly light posts he has made since then, and even when he does speak it doesn't really help the scumhunt.

I feel it's possible he's a scum, sitting back watching town point fingers at each other while he watches the time tick away.

[Nudude]

Additionally, I just read the bottom line of that quote. It's been quite a bit longer than eight hours, and we've yet to hear imaginalities thoughts.

[Nudude]

Nudude, your criticism of me is fair, with respect to the lack of posting at the moment. Real life intervened this weekend and I'm at work right now (2pm in NZ) so unable to post in any great detail, but will do so as soon as I have the opportunity this evening.

Good to know that you've been keeping an eye on the thread =)

[Nudude]

Nice post imaginality, I feel a lot better about you now =).

You make a good point about Greasy Spot, he has been fairly inactive.

Mod: Request a prod on The Pope's Tiara and Greasy Spot.

I'm not entirely comfortable having TPT at L-1, and I'm definetely against a hammer, but if that doesn't motivate him to post then nothing will.

After we've established TPT abandonment of the game, or he starts contributing, if greasy spot hasn't contributed something by then, I'd probably be looking at him next.

When he talked about not taking the first page seriously, it showed that he's had experience with mafia games, and so would surely understand the need to post and contribute.

[Nudude]

I also look forward to hearing darkdude's thought's on imaginalities post.

[Nudude]

It's so interesting. After reading darkdude's analysis, it had me thinking that it might be worth taking a look at him, but then I read this.

I already answered that pretty much, in post 74:

However, to describe TPT's behaviour as 'way scummy' but not push harder for a vote against him is indeed odd. In fact, that's probably one of the most significant things to stand out from Untitled's play so far, for me.

I was less concerned with him attacking TPT in itself, but I found it more suspect that despite describing TPT's post and vote as "

way

scummy" he didn't vote TPT, only FoSed him. (Yes, as Untitled notes above, it would have put TPT at L-1 but it would be a genuine reason for doing so compared to TPT's ultra-weak justification for his L-1 vote on Untitled.)

The fact that Untitled's post 31 could be seen as an attempt to deflect attention onto Nudude and TPT is a fair part of why I find it more likely that he would be scum than mole. It's true that I said I only thought at most one of them is scum - but that was

not

(as you suggest) because one was pushing a case on the other, it was because if both of them were scum, both TPT and Greasy Spot would be town, and that seemed less likely to me.

This was untitled's post:

lynch-1 and being ok with lynching someone this early is

way

scummy. wonder whether nudude would have pulled his vote so fast if imaginality hadn't nailed him?

Unvote

FoS: the pope's tiara, nudude

Even though it was questioning my alliegence, it's a valid concern that's could just as easily have been made by a townie fishing for reads as it could have been from a scum trying to sow dissent.

Why are you using it to paint untitled as scum?

Unvote:

Vote: imaginality

[Nudude]

My conclusion is that if TPT is inexperienced, then it is null tell. If TPT is experienced, it's scum tell. It is not between joking/serious, but rather level of competence.

this makes no sense.

scum stand to gain more from fast lynches than town (particularly fast mislynches, but my alignment is yet to be proven). putting someone at lynch-1 at the top of page 2 is therefore an anti-town action, and will be seen as such by most players.

assuming that scum want to avoid obvious anti-town behaviour, experienced scum are

much less

likely to do this than inexperienced scum. experienced scum know that the act is anti-town, and thus avoid it. inexperienced scum do not know that the act is anti-town, and thus may do it because they stand to gain from it.

an experienced player would only ever place a fast lynch-1 vote for wifom purposes, and that definitely isn't a strong scumtell, otherwise they wouldn't do it in the first place. they are, by definition, experienced enough to know what's a scumtell and what isn't.

to conclude that tpt is town we must assume both that he didn't know that his vote was against the best interests of his faction

and

that he didn't know that it would be viewed as suspicious. if he's scum then we only need to assume the latter. as such, it is more likely that he's scum than town, because it requires fewer assumptions about his motives. how much more likely is a matter of personal opinion, but it's not a completely null tell.

And as for my view on putting someone at -1 to lynch, I think at this point it is totally safe to have players at -1. Similar to the above reasoning: no town would hammer without first providing good reason and attempting to convince others. Scum can hammer and try to shake it off with WIFOM, but since town would avoid it altogether it is still scum tell. Therefore scum wouldn't dare to hammer, and if they did it is a good trade off for town.

but what if the player who hammers is inexperienced? by your own logic, that wouldn't be a scumtell.

Normally town players more often than not focus their attention of the most worthy arguments

would you say that an argument about the meaning of the word "argue" is worthy? that was the entire point of my comment: to indicate that I thought your discussion with greasy spot was a waste of time.

You spend alot of this post trying to get more of a read on TPT. At this point, unless your psychic, we don't have enough info to tell which side TPT is on.

But still your pushing for investigation on someone that might have abandonded the game. How knows what TPT was thinking. We'll have to wait for him to show up, or grill his replacement. As for now, why continue a WIFOM debate? Time is on scum's side here, and WIFOM's are a great time sink.

You avoid my vote for now, but only

just

, beause I can only vote for one person at a time.

FOS: untitled

[Nudude]

Oops! Sorry about going AWOL there. I didn't have this game on my watch list yet. Fixed! Let me read and I'll post my thoughts later.

Define "Later". Later could be a few days from now, and in a game where time is of the essence, I'd hate to think that your trying to stall for time.

[Nudude]

The fact that Untitled's post 31 could be seen as an attempt to deflect attention onto Nudude and TPT is a fair part of why I find it more likely that he would be scum than mole.

I said it 'could be seen as (suspicious)'. I didn't say it definitely was. If I thought it definitely was, I would have voted Untitled already.

I think my questioning Untitled's reasons for that post is as valid as Untitled questioning you in that post. I'm not painting him as scum, just saying that that was the main thing that stood out for me, and was why I felt he was relatively more likely to be scum than molestargazer. Note: not 'likely', just 'more likely than'.

In fact, I think Untitled makes some good points about TPT in post 89 above. I agree with that post. And my suspicion of TPT makes me

less

inclined to think that Untitled is scum.

Fair enough.

Unvote:

Vote: untitled

I know this put's him at L-1, but I agree with darkdudes sentiments that if scum were to hammer, 1 townie for 1 scum is a good trade.

[Nudude]

Alright, I'm happy to leave untitled for the moment.

[/b]Unvote:[/b]

Vote:

GreasySpot

Still waiting for him to contribute something to the scumhunt. First excuse was it wasn't on his watchlist, despite posting over a few days initally, and made a "I'll post later" post. Got any ideas yet?

[Nudude]

EBWOP:

To clarify last post:

I am

Unvote: Untitled

and

Vote: Greasyspot

[Nudude]

Can't say I'm a fan of your last post either Woodsman. You call molestargazer suspicious for his early attack on untitled, but in the same post you yourself call untitled suspicious for the responses he made. If you didn't like his responses, why was it wrong for molestatgazer to continue investigating him?

It feels like to me your intent with that post wasn't to help us find scum, but to try make yourself look less suspicious.

[Nudude]

Mod: Request prod on greasy spot

[Nudude]

I can't help but feel that there's scum currently voting for the bored woodsman. He's barely replaced into the game. He replaces in, makes two posts, and suddenly finds himself at L-1.

I admit, I'm not a fan of his posting style, but we haven't even had the chance to figure out if it's scum, or just his posting style. How about we chat to him before we put him 1 vote from the noose?

At the moment, I feel a few players are going for the easy targets, which is a a great way for scum to blend in with the town. Good townies are paranod about lynching the wrong person, but a few people here are happy to have a guy who has made barely three posts at L-1.

[Nudude]

Okay, just forget that last post.

Now anyway......

I admit, I'm not a fan of his posting style, but we haven't even had the chance to figure out if it's scum, or just his posting style. How about we chat to him before we put him 1 vote from the noose?

I suppose you mean the way I seem to place certain emphasis on so called "tells" of Untitled? I'll admit, it's not like the case against him is rock solid,

he just seems to have more evidence against him than anybody else

. If you're really afraid of lynching the wrong guy, we could go No Lynch. But do we really want to risk that? I just don't like the idea of having to go around in circles again and give our enemies more chance to mislead us. If you really want to know, I've never played in a Mafia game where No Lynch resulted, so I'm a little nervous where that could lead us. Don't think you can somehow lead me in another direction because of that though. I shall evaluate the later posts myself.

That's why I vote for Untitled. It's not like I won't change it at some point, but I want to make sure that the Town's position won't be weakened if I do so.

At the moment, I'd say it's yourself that has the most evidence of being scum. I'm not entirely sure about either of you at this point, but if I had to choose right now I'd say you.

Untitled correctly pointed out your only at L-2, and the only reason I don't vote for you is because if someone did lynch you I couldn't say for certain it was scum or a townies who feels they've seen enough.

See, for me, I have a hard time following your logic, and I'm not sure if it's simply that, or that your trying to avoid looking suspicious.

[Nudude]

Hey guys, seeing as how things have quietened down, I'm doing a PbP on imaginality. The reason I picked him was because I was doing a re-read of the thread to see if anything occured to me. I got a hunch about imaginality, so I had a closer look and formed some conclusions.

Vote: The Pope's Tiara

We'll beat the scum through the cunning and insightful application of reason and logic and whatnot, not by listening to spiritual advisors.

Looks like a random vote to me. No read.

I've also found scum in this game.

Nudude was newly inducted into the scum and a little nervous at the responsibility his godfather had entrusted him with in sending him and The Pope's Tiara to take over Shytown. So he began with a tongue-in-cheek post directed at The Pope's Tiara. He felt this was a safe enough first post, and a playful nod in his scum buddy's direction. Pretending to suspect her and find out she's town, when he and she both knew she was scum, that was fun!

But then when Untitled questioned why Nudude didn't vote, Nudude decided he'd better vote to avoid having unwanted attention placed on him. However, with only four to lynch, he felt uncomfortable about the idea of putting a second vote on his scum buddy. So he voted for Untitled. His explanation that he 'couldn't resist OMGUSSing' belies his deeper rage at Untitled for putting him on the spot so early in the game.

When Greasy Spot voted Nudude for the OMGUS vote, Nudude tried to laugh it off as just part of the random voting stage, but with a nervous chuckle betraying his true feelings, his response seemed a little forced.

The Pope's Tiara watched events with dismay. Her scumbuddy had two votes against him. It was time to leap into action - not defending him directly, no, too obvious; instead, targeting Untitled. If she could make a case against him, Nudude would be off the hook.

While she started strong, she pulled her punch in the end, saying that even if he's not scum he's worth lynching. She felt she needed some wiggle room for when Untitled turned up townie.

Sadly for her, and Nudude, a townie was thoughtfully watching these exchanges. imaginality smiled. He'd caught both the scum by the start of page 2. And even better, his vote was already on one of them. He sat back to relax, knowing the other townies would be along soon to help him lynch the scum. It was turning out to be a very good day indeed.

At the time, it seemed to me that he was over analysing what had happened thus far, but in retrospect it did a good job of generating some conversation.

My post was one part parodying The Pope's Tiara's post, one part deliberately reading a lot into a little in order to make a case, and two parts believing that, while my case was certainly exaggerated for effect, it was also believable and potentially even true, at least, from the posts up to then,

they looked as likely to be scum as any and more so than most

.

I do think that it's unlikely all three players who were voting Untitled at that time (molestargazer, Nudude and The Pope's Tiara) are town. Untitled's play didn't and hasn't seemed scummy enough to justify three votes against him. And The Pope's Tiara's post was a convenient one if he/she is scum - putting Untitled onto L-1, with a post that on the one hand might tempt a weak player to hammer, but on the other hand, he/she can easily dismiss as "Well, I was obviously joking with that post, no-one should have taken it seriously," if required.

The ensuing posts have been interesting to read but it's late here (in NZ) and I need sleep so I'll comment on those in eight hours or so from now.

Admittedly, I refered to this post earlier, but upon a re-read new things have come to light. imaginality makes some valid points, but I've bolded something that made me think.

I don't feel, at that point in the game, it was possible to tell who was more scummy than who, but his statement implies we were looking scummier than most people. At this point, I'd made 3 posts, which were all clearly your typical, random, non-serious first page posts. If imaginality had said "I was throwing a fishing line, and they were random people" I could appreciate that, but he said 'More so than most'. How exactly did my three random posts make me more scummy than most?

darkdude, I think you're misreading that. At least, I took Greasy Spot to be saying that he didn't argue (as in put forward) the thing about equality being back, he agreed with Untitled when Untitled said that. I.e. he wasn't the first one to mention it.

A reasonable post. No read.

Nudude, your criticism of me is fair, with respect to the lack of posting at the moment. Real life intervened this weekend and I'm at work right now (2pm in NZ) so unable to post in any great detail, but will do so as soon as I have the opportunity this evening.

This is in response to a post I made about his lack of contribution. I find his response to be reasonable. No read.

So, after TPT dropped in to cast an L-1 vote and then vanished from sight, we've had molestargazer and darkdude lining up to attack Untitled on the one hand, while Nudude (and Greasy Spot to some extent) were generally sticking up for Untitled, with Nudude somewhat suspicious of molestargazer in particular until recently.

I think it's interesting that darkdude (post 27) didn't comment on TPT's L-1 vote at the time. As I mentioned in post 45, TPT's post 26 is a very convenient one for having it both ways, with experienced players likely to read it as a joke post at the tail end of the random vote stage, but the possibility of newbie players taking it seriously and perhaps even voting. No, I don't think it's definitely scummy, but I do think it (combined with the lack of posting since) is suspicious enough to warrant further explanation. To be clear: it's not just that TPT put Untitled on L-1 that led me to vote him, it's the way he did it, with an ambiguous post like that, neither clearly joking nor clearly serious.

(Incidentally, regarding my posts 28 and 45, I think the discussion about whether my post was fishing for reactions or making a case misses the point that a post can do both. I.e. it was early days, the case was weak, so how people reacted to my post was as significant a reason for posting (in my eyes) as the case itself. When I said in post 45, "I do think that it's unlikely all three players who were voting Untitled at that time (molestargazer, Nudude and The Pope's Tiara) are town," that was based on their actions after post 28 as well as before.)

In the arguments over the last page or so, some of molestargazer's posts don't ring true for me.

Post 35 (and in general) places way too much weight on Untitled voting you for your vote on him. As others have mentioned, his vote on you is less questionable than your over-defensiveness in response to it. The following posts continue that theme.

(By the way, in post 46, Untitled said he had reasons for not responding to TPT's post directly, "but I want to hear from tpt again before saying more." I want to come back to that once we do hear from TPT again.)

Post 54 is a little off, at least as regards the misunderstanding of Untitled's point which seems so blatant as to be deliberate.

Nudude's post 59 sums up my thoughts on mole's posts:

Nothing wrong with that, but my issue is that one of your main points against untitled is that he became very defensive over a random vote.

As best I can tell, his over-reaction was saying "Parity is the enemy", and putting a vote on you. To me, it just felt like a random excuse for a random vote, and it doesn't feel to me to be over-defensive. In fact, I feel the first over-defensive post came from you, with post 18

I think mole is being harsh on Untitled in post 71:

At that point he was at L-1, and did not respond to TPT's L-1 vote, instead choosing to comment on Imaginality's post.

At that point he was no longer at L-1 (Nudude had unvoted) and his FoS on TPT in post 31 could be seen as an implicit comment on TPT's post. (At least it shows he noticed it.) However, to describe TPT's behaviour as 'way scummy' but not push harder for a vote against him is indeed odd. In fact, that's probably one of the most significant things to stand out from Untitled's play so far, for me.

Conclusions:

darkdude and Nudude: I'm pretty sure darkdude is town. I'm also feeling fairly good about Nudude, who may perhaps have been a touch wishy-washy so far but who has made well-reasoned posts.

Untitled and molestargazer: I think at most one of them is scum. If one is scum, right now, I'm leaning towards Untitled, at least until he explains his post 46. I think molestargazer has driven the case against Untitled hard and perhaps too hard - I think it's fairly possible they're both town. I'm not ruling out molestargazer being scum, and want to reread his posts again soon to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Greasy Spot and The Pope's Tiara: I think at least one of them is scum. It would make a lot of sense for scum to sit back a little if two townies are going for each other all guns blazing, TPT's L-1 post is suspicious, and Greasy Spot has been given a pretty easy ride considering his early slightly noteworthy posts (the 'here! here!' and the vote on Nudude) and relative lack of content since.

imaginality: Pretty sure he's town.

Nothing wrong with this post, except I don't feel, upon a re-read, that it really added much to the discussion. It felt more like a summary rather than fresh input. There were some fresh ideas at the end though, but overall it could be a big post simply for the sake of a big post. Big posts are only really good if they add lots of things. This was a big post that added very little, and could be an attempt to look like a massive contribution, when it actual fact it didn't really add a whole lot.

Post 54: where mole said

You're trying to say that you find it odd people writing TPT off as inexperienced because we're also trying to find scum?

(And also in that post, I found his attempt to justify his early defensiveness as deliberately reaction-seeking a little dubious.)


Re. not pushing for a vote; I don't mean you should've voted him already (I agree that would be too hasty), just that I was surprised you didn't pursue the case against him.

The only thought that occurs to me is that while molestargazer didn't pursue TPT further, it's not like you've been doing much pursuing of yourself. Molestargazer gave us lots to read on untitled at least.

I also look forward to hearing darkdude's thought's on imaginalities post.

Likewise. It would also be good if he could give his reasons for voting TPT to L-1 (he had previously said that TPT looks scummy for being silent, but had also said that Untitled's post 31 was 'the most notable scumtell we have yet').

Nudude, you said, "I'm not entirely comfortable having TPT at L-1," and I agree with you.

I find it interesting that TPT has been on L-1 for a day or more now. If TPT is townie, scum could plausibly hope to get away with hammering him, so the fact that no one's hammered him makes me feel he is likely to be scum, if that makes sense.

Even so, I don't feel good about keeping him on L-1 when he may just have flaked, rather than be lurking. We should at least give him (or his replacement) a chance to reply before we lynch.

So Unvote: The Pope's Tiara temporarily, just so there's no chance of a mislynch.

But TPT, we really need to hear from you soon. I have unvoted for the moment out of courtesy, but right now you're still my lynch target for today.

Your logic doesn't rub me right. Technically, it makes sense, but it doesn't. I'd say, at this point, everyone suspected TPT had simply abandonded the game, and I know there is no way I would have let someone get away with hammering him if he turned up town. The fact is it would be an extremely poor play for scum to hammer him, but you attempt to make it sound plausible.

I already answered that pretty much, in post 74:

However, to describe TPT's behaviour as 'way scummy' but not push harder for a vote against him is indeed odd. In fact, that's probably one of the most significant things to stand out from Untitled's play so far, for me.

I was less concerned with him attacking TPT in itself, but I found it more suspect that despite describing TPT's post and vote as "

way

scummy" he didn't vote TPT, only FoSed him. (

Yes, as Untitled notes above, it would have put TPT at L-1 but it would be a genuine reason for doing so compared to TPT's ultra-weak justification for his L-1 vote on Untitled.)

The fact that Untitled's post 31 could be seen as an attempt to deflect attention onto Nudude and TPT is a fair part of why I find it more likely that he would be scum than mole. It's true that I said I only thought at most one of them is scum - but that was

not

(as you suggest) because one was pushing a case on the other, it was because if both of them were scum, both TPT and Greasy Spot would be town, and that seemed less likely to me.

The bolded part caught my eye. Only a short time ago, he was worried about TPT being at L-1, and now is saying someone is suspicious because they

didn't

put him at L-1, and in fact justifies why L-1 would have been ok.

The fact that Untitled's post 31 could be seen as an attempt to deflect attention onto Nudude and TPT is a fair part of why I find it more likely that he would be scum than mole.

I said it 'could be seen as (suspicious)'. I didn't say it definitely was. If I thought it definitely was, I would have voted Untitled already.

I think my questioning Untitled's reasons for that post is as valid as Untitled questioning you in that post. I'm not painting him as scum, just saying that that was the main thing that stood out for me, and was why I felt he was relatively more likely to be scum than molestargazer. Note: not 'likely', just 'more likely than'.

In fact, I think Untitled makes some good points about TPT in post 89 above. I agree with that post. And my suspicion of TPT makes me

less

inclined to think that Untitled is scum.

This was a response to me when I said I didn't like him taking a valid concern a pro-town player would have and was using to make him look suspicious. I found his response to be reasonable, but noted.

Has GreasySpot been prodded?

Looking forward to hearing what The Bored Woodsman has to say.

molestargazer's most recent post set off a few warning bells for me. He said nothing for a few days, but as soon as Nudude unvoted Untitled, molestargazer does the same, with no reason for his unvote.

Vote: molestargazer Why did you unvote Untitled? Why did you change your stance from your previous post (where you said, "Just because you have an explanation to or a query about an attack doesn't mean it's a bad one. I don't really have much else to say right now. My vote stays on Untitled")?

I think this is reasonable logic.

Fair enough.

Unvote: molestargazer

Vote: The Bored Woodsman

Most of your post is about why you find Untitled scummy, but then you throw your vote onto Greasy Spot (Spot not Spoon, just by the way), just for inactivity?

Again, I feel this to be a reasonable question.

In summary, I feel I've raised some valid concerns, and hopefully kick-started the conversation =)

Unvote:

Vote: Imaginality

[Nudude]

Just taking a look at molestargazers posts here:

I'm going to try and make a bit of sense out of these last few pages since I posted. So, another quick read from where I left off, I'll point out what I pick up along the way.

Really, I would never lynch somebody just for inactivity. I'm a little bit more subtle than that, I realize that would be a bad strategy, were I Mafia.

This bit seemed a little strange. Lynching someone for inactivity is a bad strategy for both town and mafia. I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at here.

Lynching for inactivity isn't always bad. When it comes to lurking, you have to decide wether your willing to lynch someone for inactivity, or your not going to. However, if you decide your not willing to lynch someone for inactivity, your giving scum an opportunity to slip under the radar simply because you don't get enough of a chance to get a read on them, so it isn't

always

a bad strategy. I'm very suspicious of TBW as well, but it feels like to me your chasing him so hard your

making

reasons for him to be suspicious. I don't like it.

which empty claims are those?

I'm mainly referring to the way you interpreted TPT's post voting for you. You automatically assumed that he had to be scum because of the way he came out swinging. First all, I'll say he must have been inexperienced because thw tone was so blatant, it's nothing that I would have ever posted. From there on out, you would repeatad naseum on how TPT must be scum to post something like that, yet you have failed to really prove your case beyond your own interpretations. And personally, what he said about the upper hand makes me think he's townie. The tone is cetainly aggressive, but the scumminess of it is up to interpretation.

What you have there is one claim on TPT. I would not see that as 'empty claims', just

one case against TPT who did make a very scummy post.

Could you please quote what he said about the Upper Hand and why you think that means he (And therefore you) are Pro-Town? Just to clarify.

So you think TPT made a scummy post? You didn't think it was scummy when you posted with this:

The Pope's Tiara

- I think his post attacking Untitled was more inexperienced than scum (As darkdude has said), and is being a little over-agressive. So far, I can't really judge, but if I had to pick, I'd say Pro-Town.

When someone changes their opinion to fit the theory they are trying to push, it makes me suspicious.

I can't help but feel that there's scum currently voting for the bored woodsman. He's barely replaced into the game. He replaces in, makes two posts, and suddenly finds himself at L-1.

I admit, I'm not a fan of his posting style, but we haven't even had the chance to figure out if it's scum, or just his posting style. How about we chat to him before we put him 1 vote from the noose?

At the moment, I feel a few players are going for the easy targets, which is a a great way for scum to blend in with the town. Good townies are paranod about lynching the wrong person, but a few people here are happy to have a guy who has made barely three posts at L-1.

This raises a very valid point.
TPT was taking a lot of fire (Metaphorically speaking) before The Bored Woodsman replaced. This means that:
- Woodsman must try and account for TPT's mistakes, especially with this pressure
- His posting style means that he's taking a lot of flak already.
This could mean that:
- He's Pro-Town, and cannot account for his predecessor's mistakes
- He's scum, and is failing to diguise it efficiently enough
Whilst we mustn't rush for a lynch, we musn't continually hang back in fear. If someone thinks they have found scum, and if they can provide valid reasons and solid evidence, we should go for it. Especially since deadline is drawing still closer.

We shouldn't hang back in fear if we suspect someone? We should go ahead and lynch them? So why are you the only one not voting at the moment, while pushing others to 'go ahead'?

TBW then says that we should go for Untitled rather than go for a No Lynch. So, in your opinion, at this time, Untitled was the best lynch candidate the town had?

Untitled...well, I'll just wait and see what happens. He actually seemsa little more reasonable than I thought upon a second look of the posts he has made. Not enough to unvote him but we'll just see how this game goes.

You seem to have retracted your case against Untitled very quickly considering a few posts earlier you believed him to be the best candidate to lynch.

Oh, I don't believe that both of you have something to hide. I really think it can be only one or the other. As far as I can tell, you haven't really worked together in any real capacity.

You can't really assume that just because they haven't worked together that they cannot be scumbuddies.

I don't feel, at that point in the game, it was possible to tell who was more scummy than who, but his statement implies we were looking scummier than most people. At this point, I'd made 3 posts, which were all clearly your typical, random, non-serious first page posts. If imaginality had said "I was throwing a fishing line, and they were random people" I could appreciate that, but he said 'More so than most'. How exactly did my three random posts make me more scummy than most?

I may be wrong, but I think that, at that time, Imaginality was going off any evidence he could gain, and your posts might have contained something more scummy than anyone else had posted?

To be quite honest, I've finished in even more confusion than when I started.

The Bored Woodsman

- Right off the bat tries actively to fend off suspicion. Creates a case against Untitled, votes Greasy Spot for inactivity. Later puts more effect on his case against Untitled by voting, and then on the next page this dissipates quite quickly.

Untitled

- Whilst he quickly votes TBW shortly after being replaced, I can see his reasoning. I'm not sure what to think, but I'm not sure of his scumminess as I was earlier in the game.

If I had to pick someone to lynch, I'd pick The Bored Woodsman. He claims he cannot respond to everything he's said and all the cases against him, and seems to hint towards the possibility of the ones voting for him being scum - despite the reasoning against him.

As I said before, TBW does smell of scum, but he is also an easy target for someone looking to make the town focus on the wrong man. You've made it quite clear you don't like him, encouraged the town to hammer him if we think he's scum, while not making a vote yourself.

I can't help but feel alot of the things you said in this post were to try and make TBW more scummy looking. He already looked scummy, but the fact that your doing your damndest to make him look as scummy as possible makes you very scummy to me.

Unvote:

Vote: molestargazer

[Nudude]

Just taking a look at molestargazers posts here:

I'm going to try and make a bit of sense out of these last few pages since I posted. So, another quick read from where I left off, I'll point out what I pick up along the way.

Really, I would never lynch somebody just for inactivity. I'm a little bit more subtle than that, I realize that would be a bad strategy, were I Mafia.

This bit seemed a little strange. Lynching someone for inactivity is a bad strategy for both town and mafia. I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at here.

Lynching for inactivity isn't always bad. When it comes to lurking, you have to decide wether your willing to lynch someone for inactivity, or your not going to. However, if you decide your not willing to lynch someone for inactivity, your giving scum an opportunity to slip under the radar simply because you don't get enough of a chance to get a read on them, so it isn't

always

a bad strategy. I'm very suspicious of TBW as well, but it feels like to me your chasing him so hard your

making

reasons for him to be suspicious. I don't like it.

All I was doing in my post was going through the game since I last posted and picking things out that caught my eye.

I do not create reasons to try and lynch someone. That's stupid, and it hurts the town. All I'm saying is that lynching for inactivity isn't the best way of going about it, since there's a fair chance the person you're lynching is town - and you're doing it with no proof other than inactivity.

Just note the bolded part. He read the posts seeing what caught his eye. There have been quite a few posts in between molestargazers posts, but he only really comments on things that build a case against TBW. If you were truly scanning for things that 'caught your eye', you'd have more to comment on, not just reasons to make TBW look more scummy. I have a hard time believing in all these posts, they were the only things to get your attention.

It depends on your definition of inactivity I guess. If someone is constantly saying "I'm busy atm, but I'll post soon" to me, is an inactive player, and if they constantly use it, and you can't seem to find scum, then I'd be willing to consider lynching the inactive player. But then again, it isn't just inactivity by itself, it's them actively avoiding making comment. So yeah, I'm willing to accept that it's just a matter of what you define as inactive.

which empty claims are those?

I'm mainly referring to the way you interpreted TPT's post voting for you. You automatically assumed that he had to be scum because of the way he came out swinging. First all, I'll say he must have been inexperienced because thw tone was so blatant, it's nothing that I would have ever posted. From there on out, you would repeatad naseum on how TPT must be scum to post something like that, yet you have failed to really prove your case beyond your own interpretations. And personally, what he said about the upper hand makes me think he's townie. The tone is cetainly aggressive, but the scumminess of it is up to interpretation.

What you have there is one claim on TPT. I would not see that as 'empty claims', just

one case against TPT who did make a very scummy post.

Could you please quote what he said about the Upper Hand and why you think that means he (And therefore you) are Pro-Town? Just to clarify.

So you think TPT made a scummy post? You didn't think it was scummy when you posted with this:

The Pope's Tiara

- I think his post attacking Untitled was more inexperienced than scum (As darkdude has said), and is being a little over-agressive. So far, I can't really judge, but if I had to pick, I'd say Pro-Town.

I did think it was scummy, but I thought that was because he was inexperienced more than he was scum.
I think you're just nit-picking here.

So you give TPT the benefit of the doubt, but pursue TBW? That's inconsistent logic. Previously, your willing to give a scummy looking, but potentially inexperienced, player the benefit of the doubt, but now your not.

This raises a very valid point.
TPT was taking a lot of fire (Metaphorically speaking) before The Bored Woodsman replaced. This means that:
- Woodsman must try and account for TPT's mistakes, especially with this pressure
- His posting style means that he's taking a lot of flak already.
This could mean that:
- He's Pro-Town, and cannot account for his predecessor's mistakes
- He's scum, and is failing to diguise it efficiently enough
Whilst we mustn't rush for a lynch, we musn't continually hang back in fear. If someone thinks they have found scum, and if they can provide valid reasons and solid evidence, we should go for it. Especially since deadline is drawing still closer.

We shouldn't hang back in fear if we suspect someone? We should go ahead and lynch them? So why are you the only one not voting at the moment, while pushing others to 'go ahead'?

Touché.
I'm not voting for someone because I have absolutely no idea who is scum. We don't have solid evidence for anyone.
Pushing for a lynch, and voting when you don't know who you want to lynch is absurd.
All I'm saying in that post is if we

do

find someone scummy, we

do

have a lot of posts and evidence for them, we shouldn't hang back in fear of being wrong.

You've made your stance on TBW perfectly clear, to such a degree you've been almost exclusive focused on him since he came into the game, but claim that your not really sure who's scum. It seems like you do.

ALSO if your not sure, why aren't you looking around? Why not build a case on a few people? If your not sure, why focus on one player, that you think is scummy while also saying your not sure who is scummy? It just doesn't make sense.

As I said before, TBW does smell of scum, but he is also an easy target for someone looking to make the town focus on the wrong man. You've made it quite clear you don't like him,

encouraged the town to hammer him

if we think he's scum, while not making a vote yourself.

Bullshit.
I never said I don't like him.

All I quoted were the posts that caught my eye, and nothing more.

Like I've already said.
All I said in my post was that I think he's the best candidate for a lynch

at this time

.
I didn't vote for him because I want to see how he reacts, and I want still more discussion before we go for a lynch. I am in no way certain of his guilt right now, but right now, in my confusion, he's the best candidate for a lynch.

You seem to be taking a very aggressive response to my post.

Again emphasising he was allegedly reading for things that 'caught his eye'. Interesting that someone who claims to be 'not sure' seems to be only spotting things that make TBW look more suspicious.

[Nudude]

Hello. I'll be reading the thread today or tomorrow, most likely tomorrow. I have some reading I have to do in another game first.

Your predecessor had a habit of inactivity. Don't make it one of yours.

[Nudude]

Alrighty molestatgazer, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Your answers are reasonable.

It's about 11 days from lynch, and I feel we have a decent amount of info on all the players thus far, save one.

Unvote:

Vote:Megatheory

I can't speak for the other players, but I'm perfectly prepared to lynch someone for inactivity. Just consider this a placeholder vote untill your activity picks up =)

[Nudude]

I can't speak for the other players, but I'm perfectly prepared to lynch someone for inactivity. Just consider this a placeholder vote untill your activity picks up =)

So you don't think we have suspicious players that are more likely to be scum than inactives?

Not at all, but you have to be careful when scumhunting that your not eyeing off someone that is suspicious just because they have a problem solving process that sounds strange. Strange is not always scummy, sometimes it's just strange. Not always mind you, but it's important to ask yourself are they suspicious because they've been bad, or they're just hard to understand.

Additionally, when there's arguements flying around left right and centre, for me, the old rule applies: Keep your eye on the quiet ones. A good townie has an opinion on everything, a scum just wants to keep his head down while the town bickers amongst itself, because they don't care who
gets lynched. It could also be a townie just watching the discussion, but you can't let anyone slip under the radar.

[Nudude]

Right now, I don't see TBW as an inexperienced player. He knows what he's doing. TPT's post was ridiculous enough to think he may have been inexperienced. (If that makes sense)

In a sense yeah, but it may just be that I'm more instinctive than TPT was. See, I hadn't played in a while before signing on to MafiaScum. However, I'll tell you I don't like reading through 6 pages of text. That doesn't mean I won't, but I might grasp a higher tendency to look at Untitled's generally hostile attitude as proof along with everything else that he is scum(I'm just slightly doubtful though) anyways, maybe he is. But then, maybe you are. If Nudude's accusation of you not liking me had more basis, I would have probably voted for you since you did say I was the best lynch.

We'll wait for your full re-read.

Nudude: You should have waited until sometime Saturday. He basically said anytime Friday, which is being pretty general I'd say.

Aggresive does not neccesarily equal scum. Take a look at some of Albert Rampage's games. He is one of the most aggresive players on scumnet, town or scum. I'd hardly call aggresive proof of scumhood.

I thought about leaving it untill tomorrow, but I'd rather poke someone and let them know we haven't forgotten them and get them to post rather than letting them slip a day or two. I feel I should have done it sooner with greasy spot, we might have gotten a few extra days of conversation rather than giving a few days leeway.

[Nudude]

Ok, my thougts on you guys. Lets keep the ball rollling =).

TBW:

I wouldn't be completely disappointed if he was today's lynch. TPT was kind of odd, and TBW is kind of odd, but I can't say for sure if it's scummy, or just odd. My concern is that a lynch of him wouldn't reveal alot of information. Everyone is highly suspicious of him, so if he turned up town, how could we determine who pushed it? However, as I said, I don't think it would be totally unreasonable if he was today's lynch. I'd advise having a bit of a poke around, build some cases. It will go a long way with me to putting you in the pro-town box.

molestargazer:

I've been pretty mean to him this game! ; ) I'm still not entirely convinced which way he swings. It's only

just

, but I'm leaning town at the moment. To his credit, however, he has been fairly active in his pursuit of scum, and I like that in a townie! I'd suggest he doesn't stop with TBW and untitled, but apply his keen investigative skills to the rest of the players.

darkdude:

I would like to get a bit more of a read on him. I've been reading through his posts to try and find something to poke him with, but I can't find anything. This means he's either town or a very, very good scum. I'm hoping for, and suspecting, the earlier. I would like to see more posts from him, not because I think he's inactive, but it will give me a better read of his pro-town or scum alignment. All in all though, he's been a benefit to the town.

untitled:

I'll be straight up. I think he is far to active and aggresive to be scum. It could be an elaborate ruse on his part, leaping into the thick of things, getting the spotlight on him, and trying to hide in plain view of everyone. However, it doesn't feel like to me his style is manipulative and calculating. I think he's town, but I reserve the right to change my mind ; )

megatheory:

I don't know about him yet, but the good news I'll tell you exactly how to look pro-town to me. Post lots and lots, have opinions and thoughts on everything. Give me enough so I can take a look at you and figure out your alignment. I'm giving you the benfit of the doubt, but of course, being pro-town, you've got nothing to hide, so speak freely and frequently. It's tough because, being a replacement, you haven't really had much of a chance to contribute. Fair enough, but take every opportunity you can.

imaginality:

I've left him untill last for a reason. I can't believe he hasn't had anything to say about the past few days. It feels like to me he's looking at the discussion going on at the moment and thinks "There's no way I'm sticking my head into that" and is keeping his head down untill the storm passes. I think a good townie chips in his thoughts, ideas and evidence. Imaginality only seems to have something to say when someone points at him as says "What do you think?". A good townie is a pro-active townie (hence the term pro-town...lol), and when combined with the evidence we have so far, he's my pick for scum-of-the-day.

Unvote:

Vote: Imaginality

I think he's scum. I encourage everyone, if they feel I'm wrong, to dig around, investigate and come up with something to change my mind. In fact, given that we've still got over a week before deadline, I'd find it suspicious if you didn't. I'll be doing a full read through myself....just as soon as I get my assignments done ; )

Prove me wrong, ladies and gents. I'll be happy if you do, but it's going to have to be pretty good.

[Nudude]

After yet another re-read, my spider-sense is tingling.

I'm going on the record for saying that my preferences for a lynch today are:

1. imaginality
2. untitled
3. TBW

Just because I feel more certain of imaginality, but I find the evidence being present against untitled to be compelling.

We still have over a week of discussion, and I want to make the most of that, I'm just going on the record for where I stand now.

Megatheory, what do you think of my list?

[Nudude]

Allow me to explain my recent posts.

I'm a bit concerned because so many people are zeroing in on TBW, and don't seem to be able to see beyond him. I think that some people are so convinced they have scum, they aren't bothering to look any further.

The reasons I went back to imaginality, and also moved untitled up the list, is because I get the sneaking suspicioun they could be scum buddies.

Partly because they seem to really have their attention focused on building a case on TBW. They both voted for him at around the same time, and don't seem to be as interested in looking around as they do convincing everyone TBW is scum.

Here's some posts:

Post 31:

lynch-1 and being ok with lynching someone this early is

way

scummy. wonder whether nudude would have pulled his vote so fast if imaginality hadn't nailed him?

Unvote

FoS: the pope's tiara, nudude

Untitled makes a point on imaginalities case, while simultaneously painting him in a townie light. He goes on to make this,

Post 36:

none of what y'all are saying makes any sense. are we all reading the same thread?

Untitled

- Keeps my vote. He leapt immediately onto the defensive when I voted him in the random stage of the game, starting the whole Parity debate. When I make a post finding Greasy's post about parity 'Odd', he defends again (When there isn't really much of a need to), attacking me for keeping 'everyone on the same number of votes'. His post 31 attacks TPT for L-1ing him, again instead of defending his own actions.
I think he might be scum.

so according to you it's scummy when I defend myself, it's scummy when I defend myself whilst somehow simultaneously attacking you, and it's scummy when I attack tpt

instead of

defending myself. that doesn't leave me with a whole lot of options other than making friends with everyone and waiting for you to kill me, which would probably suit you fine but it doesn't do much for me.

Yeah it was bad, but I think it's more of "obvious inexperience" than "obvious scum". I think it is mostly a null tell.

sorry, I must have missed where inexperienced scum were immune from making mistakes. how is it a null tell when you say that you want to lynch someone whether they're scum or not?

Post 28 was full of sarcasm. If you're trying the same thing, you're not doing it right. To me it seems like you are trying to jump on the opportunity.

I'd rather that imaginality tells us himself whether he was being sarcastic, but I'm serious even if he's not. I don't do florid parody posts.

tpt's case is such obvious crap that I'm not even going to bother with it. I wouldn't have even believed he was serious if he hadn't put the last couple of paragraphs in there.

He condems, and is in fact suspicious of TPT for his parody post, while using imaginalities as a spring board for an investigation. What's the difference?

Post 45:

My post was one part parodying The Pope's Tiara's post, one part deliberately reading a lot into a little in order to make a case, and two parts believing that, while my case was certainly exaggerated for effect, it was also believable and potentially even true, at least, from the posts up to then, they looked as likely to be scum as any and more so than most.

I do think that it's unlikely all three players who were voting Untitled at that time (molestargazer, Nudude and The Pope's Tiara) are town. Untitled's play didn't and hasn't seemed scummy enough to justify three votes against him. And The Pope's Tiara's post was a convenient one if he/she is scum - putting Untitled onto L-1, with a post that on the one hand might tempt a weak player to hammer, but on the other hand, he/she can easily dismiss as "Well, I was obviously joking with that post, no-one should have taken it seriously," if required.

The ensuing posts have been interesting to read but it's late here (in NZ) and I need sleep so I'll comment on those in eight hours or so from now.

imaginality fingers a few people, while painting untitled in townie paint. It feels like to me they're pretty confident of each others innocence. At this point in the game, I had no idea....I wonder how they did?

Posts 113:

Fair enough.

Unvote: molestargazer

Vote: The Bored Woodsman

Most of your post is about why you find Untitled scummy, but then you throw your vote onto Greasy Spot (Spot not Spoon, just by the way), just for inactivity?

I could also ask why you threw a vote on TBW just because he placed a single vote on a potential lurker? Even then, TBW moves his vote to untitled his very next post, but imaginality doesn't move his.

Post 133:

imaginality. He seems pro-town but I never can tell.

you seem to be assuming that he and I both have something to hide.

I don't see how you came up with the conclusion TBW had made any sort of assumption, let lone that you two had something to hide. Your defensiveness is interesting.

Post 173:

I've tried to look for stuff that would help make a case, so I'll just trust that I'm making the right decision here.

vote:imaginality

jeez, wagon hopping much?

Your critical of TBW "hopping wagons", but did so yourself in post 118:

bah, forgot to vote.

unvote, vote: the bored woodsman

Guess who had also placed a vote on TBW just a few posts before? Post 113:

Fair enough.

Unvote: molestargazer

Vote: The Bored Woodsman

Most of your post is about why you find Untitled scummy, but then you throw your vote onto Greasy Spot (Spot not Spoon, just by the way), just for inactivity?

Fancy that......

Having said that, if noone objects, I will hammer TBW in 72 hours starting from now. I don't think he's the worst lynch, I just don't think he's the right one. He's odd, his posts are strange and he doesn't make very good points....but to me, that only proves he is odd and needs to learn how to make good posts, not that he's scum. However, some people are trying to make what is simply odd look scummy. The fact is we have proof the boy is odd, not that he is scummy. I feel that the scum are glad to have someone to hide behind.

But....if noone objects......we will see three days hence.

[Nudude]

[Regarding imaginality,] I think he's scum. I encourage everyone, if they feel I'm wrong, to dig around, investigate and come up with something to change my mind. In fact, given that we've still got over a week before deadline, I'd find it suspicious if you didn't. I'll be doing a full read through myself....just as soon as I get my assignments done ; )

Prove me wrong, ladies and gents. I'll be happy if you do, but it's going to have to be pretty good.

Wait a minute... Why do you expect the town to try and change your mind? Why would it be suspicious if the town didn't, if you're so convinced about imaginality, especially when you imply that only something extremely convincing will change your mind

TBW's imaginality vote is pretty scummy. He seemed to be favoring Untitled as scum up until the latest imaginality wagon.

With the deadline approaching, this seems like a good time for scum to move toward their real intended lynch target, and this is the best explanation for his shift, IMO.

I am convinced about imaginality, but I also know that I'm not psychic, and like every other human, I'm wrong sometimes. I'm just being honest in the fact that I could be mistaken, and encourage everyone

IF

they disagree, to present their case. I would find it suspicious if people didn't make the most of the time we have left to do some good investigating.

In particular to the bolded part, I think the scum have a fantastic lynch target in TBW, and if I were scum I certainly wouldn't be drawing the attention I am now by pointing at two people and calling them scum buddies, I'd just stick to focusing on untitled, seeing as how half the town is already suspicious of him, but this is WIFOM territory, so I'd prefer we focus on something else. To summarise, I don't think that target switching is a good scum strategy.

After yet another re-read, my spider-sense is tingling.

I'm going on the record for saying that my preferences for a lynch today are:

1. imaginality
2. untitled
3. TBW

Just because I feel more certain of imaginality, but I find the evidence being present against untitled to be compelling.

We still have over a week of discussion, and I want to make the most of that, I'm just going on the record for where I stand now.

Megatheory, what do you think of my list?

Why is Untitled scummy again? I've never really grasped the case against him. TBW should be higher than imaginality. With the deadline coming up, I think TBW is a better lynch. I have a scummy impression of imaginality, but I don't suspect him highly ATM.

Hopefully my last post touched on my concerns. As for darkdude, you'll have to ask him about that, because I'm not 100% myself, though I think it's how he used post 28 to build a case, even though it was clearly a parody.

[Nudude]

As an after thought, I will make the last bit of my previous post perfectly clear.

If there are no objections, I will be hammering TBW in a little under 71 hours

Even though he's not my prefered lynch, at the very least scum will have very little place to hide once he gets lynched, and if he flips scum, great!

[Nudude]

Molestargazer, your making me edgy. Surely you have some thoughts?

[Nudude]

Alright, a few peeps think we should make the most of our week which is fair enough. I find it interesting that untitled and imaginality tip toed around saying wether or not I should hammer, compared to darkdude and MSG who straight up said we're better off making the most of the time we have left.

Given that I said that I would wait for an objection, it's interesting they ignored the big pink elephant in the room, namely, I invited people to speak up if they felt I should hammer or not, and they kept quiet while others said "No", despite their suspiciouns of him. Make of it what you will.

I liked you last post MSG. I feel alot better when people have their eye on a few players, not just focused on one. You made my pro-town list with that (subject to change, of course )

Megatheory

, I want to hear more from you. You put TBW at L-1 and have since not said anything. You post was decent, but given that time is critical, and that you haven't been in the game that long, you need to be making more posts to give us a chance to get a read on you. If you don't, when D2 comes around, I'm going to be torn by the fact I have seen some scummy behaviour in some people, but at the same time don't know what to make of you. I don't like not knowing where you stand, because if I suspect 2 people and am not sure about a third, how can I be sure I've got it right?

I like being able to at least think "I'm reasonably sure this person is town, and I'm reasonably sure this person is scum" because if you've made a scum list, but can't feel sure someone is town, how can you think you've got it right?

[Nudude]

@ Nudude

So you keep "town lists"?

I don't, and I find reminding oneself of people's town tells also give bias to one's scum hunting. I only keep a scum list, ranking players who are most likely to be scum. Because after all, scum should be trying to drop as many town tells as possible...

Quite clearly then it's simply a matter of different scum hunting methods. Why bother bringing it up?

[Nudude]

Because counting town tells isn't effective, and often gives the illusion that one is doing something when one is not?

I can appreciate that it's not your system, but are you truly saying that you cannot at least acknowledge the potential benefits?

The only reason I think a townie would choose to raise this point is get a bit of a better read. I don't mind being scrutinized, but this isn't the way to do it.

[Nudude]

IMHO, being objective is making the maximum possible use if the information you have available to you. Scum can fake town tells, but people can also misread a scummy looking townie and lynch them, which is why town don't win every game.

There is a danger of getting tunnel vision, and I'm the first to admit I make mistakes, I think it would be more irresponsible of me to not get as much data as I can, which gives me the best possible chance to get it right. Finding reasons why someone can't be guilty is just as valid as finding out why someone is guilty. Eyewitnesses and video evidence can prove a suspect wasn't at the scene of a crime, but what your suggesting is we should ignore that, and focus on that their gun was found at the scene of the crime.

[Nudude]

Finding reasons why someone can't be guilty is just as valid as finding out why someone is guilty.

But most visible town tells aren't that type of evidence. They just show that the player makes reasonable town-perspective points and plays, which the scum is doing anyways.

Town players sometimes make a post that looks scummy, and scum players sometimes make a post that looks pro-town. That's why it's important to reference many pieces of information, and by making a town list it gives me access to more information than if I just made a scum list.

In the game of mafia, your example of video evidence would be the equivalent of being the target of an unsuccessful NK, or being confirmed by a cop. That is different from what we can do here in this game. From what I've seen players are making posts like "As for XXXX, I read him town, because he's doing what a good townie should and haven't made any scummy moves", while it should be "XXXX shows no evidence of being scum yet". It may sound like a simple rephrasing, but it projects the intention of the poster. The former statement more often than not leads the player to continue to read XXXX as town, while the latter tend to reflect a mindset in which the player is more open to suggestion of XXXX being a hard-to-catch scum. In addition, actual scum players often contribute with statements like "I think XXXX is doing pretty good as town", which adds no actual evidence to XXXX's alignment and the overall scumhunt. Because of this, I frown upon "town lists" based on such reasoning.

A town list is subject to change, just like a scum list, and it doesn't stop me from calling out something when I find it suspicious. I'm sure that if I combed through scumnet I could find many, many players who have town lists. I don't discourage a healthy skepticism of people, I just feel more comfortable when I have an idea where people stand. I'd prefer to have an idea which 5 people are town and which 2 are scum, rather than have an idea of which 2 people may be scum, but not be sure about everyone else. This does not mean the lists are final decisions by any means, and I feel that if I were to post a subject on town lists in the general forums, I imagine there would be people on both sides with valid reasons as to why they are good and bad, which leads me to believe it's really just a matter of personal opinion, and so while I respectfully disagree with your opinion of town lists, I also say do whatever works for you.

Basically, in post 196 you said that Mole is more likely to be town just because he's making reasonable points on a few players. Yes, this seems like a pro-town play, but IMHO it suggests nothing of his alignment. Note that I am not saying the opposite is true: someone making bad cases is certainly scummy. But I see no reason to write someone off as town just for making good arguments. It is something that is to be expected from all players, not something that only town players do and scum players avoid.

If someone is making good posts, then of course they're more likely to be town, but 'more likely' is a far cry from 'definetely'. It's like someone who makes a scum tell is 'more likely' to be scum, but may not neccesarily mean they are, and it's with this open mindedness that I approach my lists. It's not for everyone, but it works for me.

At the moment, your trying to make it sounds like making a town list is always, absolutely and irrefutably a bad idea, when it's very clearly a matter of personal preference. Why are you pushing this so hard?

[Nudude]

We could argue about this untill the end of D1, and on some level I can't help but feel your trying to wind down the clock with a WIFOM. On the other hand, noone really took a good look at me today, so you could just be a good townie.

My final word on the matter is town lists are a matter of personal opinion, and I'm sure many people would agree with me. Continue postings your thoughts if you like, but I won't be responding.

[Nudude]

We only have a few days left, and we need to pick a lynch target.

I think tomorrow we should try and be more pro active with getting people to post. Given the limited rme frame we have, I don't think we can afford to have people waiting for something significant to say, or we'll potentially be giving scum a free pass.

I've made my suspiciouns clear, but at the same time there's a few players I'm not sure about.

If you want to be a good townie, being quiet is a bad thing. It makes it hard for us to figure you out, and scum can potentially hide with you. If your talking, scum have to be in the open.

As I said before, I'm perfectly prepared to lynch lurkers, especially in a timed game. If you want the town to win, make sure that you post regularly so you don't waste the towns time by forcing us to look, and potentially lynch, the wrong people.

As for today's lynch, you all know where I stand. What about the rest of you?

[Nudude]

I personally feel that we've given D1 a pretty good effort, and a lynch is going to occur anyway. If we had more time I wouldn't mind a bit more discussion, but I feel that a TBW lynch isn't a bad one, and will give us plenty to discuss at the very least, and is certainly better than a random lynch.

Vote: The Bored Woodsman

Least scum don't get a night phase

[Nudude]

Feck, I knew it!

I'd say it's a safe bet that both scum were on that lynch, and I know it wasn't me.

Earlier I theorized that that untitled and imaginality were scum buddies, and the only thing that stops me from straight out voting one of you is that I don't have a good read on Megatheory.

So start talking guys.

[Nudude]

Thanks for your input untitled.

untitled

I wasn't trying to backpedal out of anything. My stance ways always that TBW wasn't the best lynch, and that his lynch would only serve to give us more information.

[Nudude]

EBWOP:

vote: untitled

[Nudude]

Feck, I knew it!

So why did you hammer TBW again?

I'd say it's a safe bet that both scum were on that lynch, and I know it wasn't me.

In a seven man game, it's hard not to come to this conclusion, but we have another situation where you can throw more dirt on Untitled and imaginality. This explains why you'd want to hammer, since you could easily narrow down the list of suspects by eliminating yourself and me since I haven't posted a whole lot.

Earlier I theorized that that untitled and imaginality were scum buddies, and

the only thing that stops me from straight out voting one of you is that I don't have a good read on Megatheory.

vote: untitled

Wow, that was fast! If you didn't vote because of your lack of a read on me, why didn't you wait for me to post?

Partly because I want to get the ball rolling as fast as possible, and partly because of untitled opportunistic attack on me. He also theorycrafts that scum are more likely to only have one person on a lynch, when statisically most D1 lynches have all scum on board.

So yeah, I'm certain I've got scum, so naturally I'm going to voice my suspiciouns.

[Nudude]

I didn't think scum would put his partner on L-1 that early in the game.

I thought aggressive bussing was becoming the norm meta? I personally would not rule out a player who lynches scum on Day 1, let alone put scum on -1. And in any case, this suggests that you were nearly sure that TBW was scum. I was under the impression you thought he was the "best lynch", not "obvscum".

By the way, Nudude, the "I know it wasn't me" adds nothing to the conversation.

Hypocritical much?

Conclusions:

darkdude and Nudude: I'm pretty sure darkdude is town. I'm also feeling fairly good about Nudude, who may perhaps have been a touch wishy-washy so far but who has made well-reasoned posts.

Untitled and molestargazer: I think at most one of them is scum. If one is scum, right now, I'm leaning towards Untitled, at least until he explains his post 46. I think molestargazer has driven the case against Untitled hard and perhaps too hard - I think it's fairly possible they're both town. I'm not ruling out molestargazer being scum, and want to reread his posts again soon to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Greasy Spot and The Pope's Tiara: I think at least one of them is scum. It would make a lot of sense for scum to sit back a little if two townies are going for each other all guns blazing, TPT's L-1 post is suspicious, and Greasy Spot has been given a pretty easy ride considering his early slightly noteworthy posts (the 'here! here!' and the vote on Nudude) and relative lack of content since.

imaginality: Pretty sure he's town.

Nudude has gotten me wary. His opening post of Day 2, post 230, when coupled with post 234 seems out of place. 234 seems like a OMGUS type reaction. And I was keeping this to myself in hopes of catching him off guard; in Day 1 Nudude did some serious wagon hopping. He was on TPT, Imaginality, Untitled, Greasy Spot, Molestargazer, and Megatheory wagons (and in that particular order, AFAIK). Ironically, he was never on a TBW wagon and never seemed to support it, but brought up the issue of hammering him. I already criticized this move. I have not much of a problem with his final hammer since we had to end Day 1, but the hammer proposal before that was already starting to stick out to me. And as Megatheory has just pointed out, his apparent reluctance to vote for Untitled seems weird, and even weirder given that he did not heed his own suggestion (waiting for comment from Megatheory).

I also reread Mole's posts after my first post of today. I didn't see much that were worth commenting, though I would be glad if someone else can also reread his posts. Maybe Megatheory should give it a try, since we all like more input from him?

The part about me is false. I don't remember voting for anyone to jump on a wagon. I do remember, however, voting for people I built a reasonable, well thought out case with, and a few people commented D1 on the quality of my posts. Why are you twisting the facts?

[Nudude]

Finally, if you want to have a look at me if you like, but I think I did a damn good job of get discussions rolling and building cases on D1. Given this is a timed game, why would I, as scum, WANT to generate conversation, and make efforts to start conversations, and poking people into contributing? It would be better for me to only chip in the occasional thought and generally keep my head down.

I post frequently, I DON'T jump on bandwagons, and I'm not afraid to stick my neck out to point my finger at something I think is odd.

In regards to my TBW, I always said that I wasn't opposed to lynching him because I felt it would get us more information HOWEVER I also quite clearly said who I thought was scum and who we should lynch, but some people wanted to play it safe, and some people wanted to use TBW as an easy target.

Don't make the same mistake today and lynch the wrong person.

[Nudude]

Untitled's post 233 didn't actually seem too bad to me IMHO. I got the feeling too but didn't want to elaborate on a WIFOM situation.

I think Untitled is scummy, but you could explain why you basically called him 100% likely to be scum? IMHO the chance of him being scum seems enough for a lynch but definitely not obvscum. So for me it's about 75% I think.

Actually, I just did basic reread of Untitled posts again, since I've been having doubts about my case on him. I come back with renewed confidence after being reminded of precisely why I find his actions scummy. I'm afraid that due to the length of time my points may have gotten lost, so for everyone's benefit I'll recap.

Starting from the point where he makes post 31, he has thus acted when I confronted him (in chronological order):

• Say that Imaginality didn't
  intend
  post 28 to be a trap, therefore his reaction was not scummy. He explicitly looked for support from Imaginality and quoted post 45 to try to prove this point.
  
• When I stated that Mole agreed with my interpretation of post 31, he avoided it by trying to question whether Mole actually agreed or not. Mole confirms my statement.
  
• He then says that my phrasing (using the word "scumhunt" instead of "cautious play" etc) makes my statement inherently biased.
  
• Then goes into argument about whether post 26 was scum tell or not. I say it is null tell, Untitled believes it is scum tell, thus his post 31 would be justified.
  
• Then he suddenly restates the argument, saying I did not properly say that it was his support of the TPT + Nudude theory which I actually found scummy. I disagree...I've been pretty much arguing that Untitled has worked up post 28, which was specifically addressing TPT + Nudude. There were other players thinking post 24 was scum tell as well, and I never FOS'ed them.
  
• Obviously I was talking about his work up of post 28 which was characterized by the inclusion of Nudude, but Untitled argues otherwise.
  
• Untitled then says, this time actually responding to my actual case, that his support of post 28 was to provoke a response. After all this, I have a REAL difficult time believing this unprovable supposed intention.
  
• He then quickly jumps on TBW wagon.
  
• Does not respond to Nudude's hammer suggestion (Though he wasn't the only one; I'll have to judge this with further reread later).

Yeah, I support Untitled Lynch.

Vote: Untitled

But he's not the only scummy one. Don't think that I support a

quick

Untitled Lynch. I'll most likely try to recap points against Imaginality like I just did with Untitled as well. I want some answers from Nudude, and I'll try to reread him in detail as well.

Of course I can't be 100% he's scum, and I'm certainly not claiming that I know for a fact. However, I feel as sure as I can be given this is a game one part putting pieces together and one part gut instinct. On one hand, I know we have plenty of time to discuss this, and you'll need to make your own decisions you feel you need to make. On the other hand, I don't want a scum to slip through out fingers because he wriggled out of it. So take your time, if you feel you need that, just don't let him escape!

[Nudude]

Finally, if you want to have a look at me if you like, but I think I did a damn good job of get discussions rolling and building cases on D1. Given this is a timed game, why would I, as scum, WANT to generate conversation, and make efforts to start conversations, and poking people into contributing? It would be better for me to only chip in the occasional thought and generally keep my head down.

WIFOM ALERT.

Sorry, IMHO your posts have deteriorated significantly since the latter part of Day 1. Not sure what this can be attributed to though...

And your critique of me yesterday keeping a town list wasn't WIFOM? Say what you like, but no scum player wants the town to have information. I think I've been providing my fair share of it, that's all.

[Nudude]

Feck, I knew it!

I'd say it's a safe bet that both scum were on that lynch, and I know it wasn't me.

Earlier I theorized that that untitled and imaginality were scum buddies, and the only thing that stops me from straight out voting one of you is that I don't have a good read on Megatheory.

So start talking guys.

this whole post reads like a massive backpedal to me. I don't think anybody was likely to find your hammer scummy, so why the pre-emptive defence?

also, why do you think it's a "safe bet" that both scum were on the wagon?

the more conventional strategy would be to have one scum on the wagon and one off it.

putting it in your terms, if you're a townie and you were conned into voting tbw then why is it so unlikely that two other townies did the same?

given that result, I agree that msg definitely needs looking at. as I said before, he seemed very swingy on tbw/tpt throughout day 1.

I wasn't trying to defend my lynch of TBW, in fact I've already said my reasons for why I'm not 100% disappointed with it. However, you choose to interpret my post as a pre-emptive defense in an attempt to make me look scummy.

As for the source of my information, look up "Stoofer's law" in the wiki. Admittedly, it was made with C12 games in mind, but I think it still applies to most mafia games. I bolded the part in your post that caused me to cite statistics. Care to link the source of your information?

While your calling MSG suspicious, you forgot to mention he was highly suspicious of you early D1...or did that just slip your mind while your saying we should investigate him. Alterior motive?

[Nudude]

I wasn't trying to defend my lynch of TBW, in fact I've already said my reasons for why I'm not 100% disappointed with it. However, you choose to interpret my post as a pre-emptive defense in an attempt to make me look scummy.

the immediate direction of suspicion towards others on the wagon reads like a preemptive push to keep heat off yourself for the hammer. it's defence through offence - keep the focus elsewhere so nobody questions your actions. apparently it looks the same way to darkdude, so I know I'm not out on my own here.

Noone was suspicious of me for the hammer, and I always said that I wouldn't feel too bad if TBW was today's lynch. Of course I'm suspicious of other people on the wagon, and I think that both scum were on the wagon, so I said so. As I've said a few times, I'm happy for people to question my actions, so I'm not trying to divert attention or focus.

Your trying to make me look scummy by interpreting my actions in a scummy light, as opposed to the truth, which was me simply voicing my thoughts.

This is not really a law at all -- more a theory. Mr Stoofer had been propounding it for some time when Turbovolver suggested that it be named as one of Stoofer's Laws. It applies to C9 games, as well as old fashioned Newbie games, but not other types of game.

Exceptions to Stoofer's 1st Law include the case where the lynchee self-votes, and where the lynch goes through at deadline with fewer than 4 votes. Also where the mafia are really smart or the town is really dumb.

Stoofer's 1st Law is highly controversial. For example, Norinel has observed that the mafia is really smart or the town is really dumb almost exactly as often as you would expect there to be fewer than two mafia on the bandwagon if the law had no relevance and voting patterns were actually random.

note that this is not in any way a statistic - it's a theory that you borrowed from someone else. this is basically just an appeal to authority - and not a very sound authority either, given the last paragraph. it certainly doesn't explain why it's a "safe bet" that both scum were on the lynch.

I give the town a little more credit than that, and my claim has more grounds than your theory, which is:

..the more conventional strategy would be to have one scum on the wagon and one off it.

Is there some scum handbook you read that out of? On what authority do you call it 'conventional strategy'?

as far as my theory, I think tbw was scummy enough in his own right that he didn't need votes from scum to push his wagon along. certainly he was an easy target for scum votes, but scum are often reluctant to throw themselves behind townie wagons too strongly (unless they are doing so for wifom purposes), for fear of looking bad when the lynchee's alignment is revealed. one scum on and one scum off is the "safe" option, because it avoids associations between the scum and leaves them room to accuse other players on the wagon (as you did at the start of the day). I'm not saying that there definitely weren't two scum on the wagon, but I don't think it's anywhere near as likely as you portray it to be.

There is ALOT of WIFOM in that post, but you say it like it's credible evidence.

While your calling MSG suspicious, you forgot to mention he was highly suspicious of you early D1...or did that just slip your mind while your saying we should investigate him. Alterior motive?

yeh, that's in the post that I referred to from the end of yesterday. go back and read it.

why are you selectively responding to my posts, btw?

I was refering to this post:

Feck, I knew it!

I'd say it's a safe bet that both scum were on that lynch, and I know it wasn't me.

Earlier I theorized that that untitled and imaginality were scum buddies, and the only thing that stops me from straight out voting one of you is that I don't have a good read on Megatheory.

So start talking guys.

this whole post reads like a massive backpedal to me. I don't think anybody was likely to find your hammer scummy, so why the pre-emptive defence?

also, why do you think it's a "safe bet" that both scum were on the wagon? the more conventional strategy would be to have one scum on the wagon and one off it. putting it in your terms, if you're a townie and you were conned into voting tbw then why is it so unlikely that two other townies did the same?

given that result,

I agree that msg definitely needs looking at. as I said before, he seemed very swingy on tbw/tpt throughout day 1.

Didn't mention it here.

As far as I can tell, I've replied to all your questions. If I've missed any, by all means bring them to my attention.

[Nudude]

EBWOP:

Sorry about the big letters at the end, I'm not sure how that happened

[Nudude]

You messed with the HTML somehow

Of course I can't be 100% he's scum, and I'm certainly not claiming that I know for a fact.

But you said...

So yeah, I'm certain I've got scum, so naturally I'm going to voice my suspiciouns.

Don't make the same mistake today and lynch the wrong person.

don't let him escape!

I would only say that if I was 100% sure he was scum... because if it's not 100% then one should always be on the lookout for new evidence instead of being hellbent on making "you're scum" statements.

And by the way, by "100% sure" I don't mean that there is no objective possibility of being wrong. Simply that from the player's perspective, the target must be scum.

For me, 100% certain is a confirmed sane cop saying "This person is scum", or the lynch turning them up scum. However, I accept your definition of 100%, and by your definition I'll say I'm as certain as a townie can be.

And your critique of me yesterday keeping a town list wasn't WIFOM?

What? Of course not! First of all, I did not say that you were scummy because you had a town list. I was simple arguing that town lists don't do much and potentially give scum a way to hide, so we should avoid it. I don't see WIFOM in that.

To be fair, it's wasn't WIFOM in the sense of trying to predict how scum would behave in a given situation, but also I think it's fair to say that keeping a town list is a personal decision, and there's no way to definitively say wether or not it is a good or bad thing.

Say what you like, but no scum player wants the town to have information.

It all depends on the risk/payoff ratio. Certainly I recall to have taken huge risks as scum just to try to win with WIFOM. By your logic, "no scum player wants to bus his partner on Day 1", and "no scum player wants to make any moves that are pro-town". The game of Mafia inherently forces scum to choose between making moves for immediate gain or to help town, or at least appear to, so that they do not get found out and lynched.

That's reasonable. I think it's best for individuals for individuals to make their own decisions as to what objective a person is trying to reach when they make a post. I'm just pointing out things that I think will show I'm town.

As for the source of my information, look up "Stoofer's law" in the wiki.

Oh please...that's not so much as a "law", or even "theory", as a JOKE. I don't see where he came up with evidence for that. Take a look at the other "laws" and you'll find them ridiculous. I wouldn't bother with those theories at all. Even if it was true at some point, you would still need to take into account of the constant universal meta change. Obviously if scum ALWAYS both hop on wagons, they'll switch their behaviour just to keep town guessing. Scum are, and will always remain, unpredictable.

I was pointing out my claim at least had some basis, whereas untitled pulled his 'conventional scum strategy' out of thin air. I could have sworn it was based off statisics, but upon closer read your quite right.

But about your literal statement, if you take into account the actual behaviour of the players in the game, the suggestion itself is not that bad. As you all know, my top suspects are Untitled and Imaginality, so I don't really have any problems with that statement itself. Just the part where you said you had statistical evidence seems like bullshit.

And as I said in my previous posts, I had done a quick reread of Mole's posts at the beginning of Day 2. IMHO so far he has shown the least scum tells. So yes, I do think both scum are on the wagon. But not because of some "Stoofer's Law".

I'm just posting my thoughts, and I would encourage town to come to their own conclusions. If something I say sticks, great, if not, that's fair enough as well. I don't expect people to just agree with what I'm saying, but I believe in saying what I think, rather than keep it to myself for fear of sticking my neck out.

[Nudude]

Partly because I want to get the ball rolling as fast as possible, and partly because of untitled opportunistic attack on me. He also theorycrafts that scum are more likely to only have one person on a lynch, when statisically most D1 lynches have all scum on board.

So yeah, I'm certain I've got scum, so naturally I'm going to voice my suspiciouns.

I can understand wanting to move the game forward, but that doesn't explain why you would wait on voting your suspects because of me, then whip out a vote before I had even posted at all today. Plus, why are you singling out Untitled as opprotunistic when I am questioning you about the same things?

The way untitled posted tipped the scales for me, it's no more or less complicated than that. The difference with you and untitled is that I think your concerns are reasonable, whereas I feel untitled was trying to make the most of an opportunity.

BTW, seizing on opprotunities is something anyone would do. If townies didn't, it would be impossible to catch scum.

Come to think of it, what about your post makes you think it creates an opprotunity?

Any posts can present on opportunity, if twisted correctly, which is what I feel untitled did. It's not so much I feel my post created an opportunity, as much as untitled created an opportunity.

Finally, if you want to have a look at me if you like, but I think I did a damn good job of get discussions rolling and building cases on D1. Given this is a timed game, why would I, as scum, WANT to generate conversation, and make efforts to start conversations, and poking people into contributing? It would be better for me to only chip in the occasional thought and generally keep my head down.

WIFOM. I think it would go the other way in a game of this size since someone keeping their head down would stick out. But it's still WIFOM.

It is a bit, to be honest. I'm just presenting my case, it's up to you to conclude what my intentions were.

In regards to my TBW, I always said that I wasn't opposed to lynching him because I felt it would get us more information HOWEVER I also quite clearly said who I thought was scum and who we should lynch, but some people wanted to play it safe, and some people wanted to use TBW as an easy target.

I'm still unclear about what information you intended to generate with your hammer. You've pointed to the TBW lynch as more evidence against people you are pretty much already convinced are scum. And how can you be sure such information is realiable when you yourself are on the lynch?

We needed to have a voted lynch, or we would have had a random lynch, which I think would have been worse. Also, there is the chance I was wrong about TBW and he was scum. I was also interested to see who scum would latch on to once their easy target was gone.

[Nudude]

I wasn't trying to defend my lynch of TBW, in fact I've already said my reasons for why I'm not 100% disappointed with it. However, you choose to interpret my post as a pre-emptive defense in an attempt to make me look scummy.

the immediate direction of suspicion towards others on the wagon reads like a preemptive push to keep heat off yourself for the hammer. it's defence through offence - keep the focus elsewhere so nobody questions your actions. apparently it looks the same way to darkdude, so I know I'm not out on my own here.

Noone was suspicious of me for the hammer, and I always said that I wouldn't feel too bad if TBW was today's lynch. Of course I'm suspicious of other people on the wagon, and I think that both scum were on the wagon, so I said so. As I've said a few times, I'm happy for people to question my actions, so I'm not trying to divert attention or focus.

Your trying to make me look scummy by interpreting my actions in a scummy light, as opposed to the truth, which was me simply voicing my thoughts.

I

know

that nobody was suspcious of you for the hammer, that's why the immediate claim that the others on the wagon must be scum seems so off. you're apparently unaware of the irony of attacking the people who actually made cases against tbw whilst claiming that you yourself did not believe him to be scum. the hammer wasn't suspicious in its own right, but you did it and you need to own it.

How many ways can I say that I'm not unhappy that TBW was our lynch, or that I hammered him? As I said yesterday, and as I'm saying today, he just wasn't my prefered lynch. I strongly believe both scum were on that lynch, so I said so. Your calling me scummy for voicing my thoughts.

I give the town a little more credit than that, and my claim has more grounds than your theory, which is:

..the more conventional strategy would be to have one scum on the wagon and one off it.

Is there some scum handbook you read that out of? On what authority do you call it 'conventional strategy'?

you still haven't explained your theory

at all

, so how can it have more grounds than mine?

Even though darkdude quite correctly pointed out I mis-understood stoofers law, that was what I refered to, whereas you call it 'conventional strategy' merely to lend your arguement weight, with absolutely no grounds to call it conventional.

"conventional strategy": the most basic scum strategy is to avoid suspicion by appearing to be pro-town. voting for a townie is not pro-town, therefore the assumption is that scum will avoid it unless they either see sufficient advantage in it or feel that they can get away with it. as such, conventional strategy would not have both scum on a townie wagon day 1 unless they felt it was either necessary or sufficiently advantageous, and you've failed to prove either of these to be true.

There is ALOT of WIFOM in that post, but you say it like it's credible evidence.

of course

there's a lot of wifom, that's pretty much exactly my point. your theory has at least as much inherent wifom, but that hasn't stopped you from pushing it. the burden of proof is on you here - you need to show why your theory is correct, it's not sufficient to decry opposing points of view as wifom.

It's for each individual townie to decide what they make of things, I'm just saying why I'm calling BS.

While your calling MSG suspicious, you forgot to mention he was highly suspicious of you early D1...or did that just slip your mind while your saying we should investigate him. Alterior motive?

yeh, that's in the post that I referred to from the end of yesterday. go back and read it.

why are you selectively responding to my posts, btw?

I was refering to this post:

Feck, I knew it!

I'd say it's a safe bet that both scum were on that lynch, and I know it wasn't me.

Earlier I theorized that that untitled and imaginality were scum buddies, and the only thing that stops me from straight out voting one of you is that I don't have a good read on Megatheory.

So start talking guys.

this whole post reads like a massive backpedal to me. I don't think anybody was likely to find your hammer scummy, so why the pre-emptive defence?

also, why do you think it's a "safe bet" that both scum were on the wagon? the more conventional strategy would be to have one scum on the wagon and one off it. putting it in your terms, if you're a townie and you were conned into voting tbw then why is it so unlikely that two other townies did the same?

given that result,

I agree that msg definitely needs looking at. as I said before, he seemed very swingy on tbw/tpt throughout day 1.

Didn't mention it here.

I don't see why I'd need to repeat the entire thing - the summary that I refer to is only a couple of pages back, so anyone who looked would have seen it.

Maybe, maybe not.

As far as I can tell, I've replied to all your questions. If I've missed any, by all means bring them to my attention.

I was referring to the question about the difference between your play and my own.

I feel I've done that in my post, now it's for town to decide.