Iceman Modeth - Mini 688 (GAME OVER!!!)

[bionicchop2]

obligatory replacement

unvote

. Will read rules and game today.

[bionicchop2]

Did a read on the game. A lot of white noise, but something may be hidden in there. There is a good basis of players that this game CAN be active. Xtoxm and Rice probably both know I am not a fan of how they have played this game, but meh. Nothing can be done about that. If we believe their claim (I do. The risk vs. reward is very poor for scum to pull this gambit as has been mentioned) it does allow us to not be distracted by their play styles (no offense meant Xtoxm, since I actually like playing in games with you despite not really liking how you play).

My first instinct is that Pyro is a good lynch candidate. I need to do a more analytical read probably (or just see where the thread goes from here) and do it with both RBT and Xtoxm as likely town in mind. I don't have any game breaking read on pyro or many specifics I could point to right now, it is more of a general feel right now with kind of a 'under-the-radar' game play so far (as opposed to obvious lurking).

[bionicchop2]

As for OP, I have similar feelings for his play as I do for how Pyro has played this game, so I certainly wouldn't hate pursuing that avenue of exploration either.

[bionicchop2]

Um, before you posted that, we both posted the same amount of posts in this game (12). Now we're both tied with 13 posts. How am I lurking anymore than you are? I try to post at least once a day, if I don't, oh well, I probably didn't have anything I wanted to comment on, but sorry. I didn't really look at both of our 13 posts (including this one), so I am not sure who vs who has posted more content, but I am sure people could analyze my posts just find as much as they could with yours.

There is a huge difference in what is posted in your 13 posts and G-Force's 13 posts IMO. # of posts means very little (unless it is ridiculously low) and the content is more important. Out of your 13 posts, only 2-3 have what I would consider decent game content and the rest is all fluff (including the 2 posts about shortening Sche's name and your 'good point, vote:RBT' post).

[bionicchop2]

Pyro analysis:

30 - random vote on EA after sche 'stirs the pot'
55 - fluff post
83 - says he wasn't posting because nothing was going on. IMO there was a decent amount to discuss early in this game. Asks others if they are suspicious of EA.
114 - response to EA. meh. I think he missed the joking undertone of both votes on juls which he is questioning (juls picked up on it right away).
142 - seems to have content, but really doesn't. Not scummy in isolation, I just don't feel like there is any genuine scum hunting.
144 - 3rd vote on RBT. I can't disagree with the vote here, but he does follow EA onto the wagon (maybe looking to avoid future EA conflicts)
151 - another post where he hints at having an opinion, but wants to get other people's opinions first before committing.
153 - fluff
182 - suggests lynch all lurkers, but with a smiley face. Rest of post is ok.
185 - says LAL was a 'joke...mostly'. Feels like the joke to gauge people's reactions.
188 - says 'we' have questions for RBT when he hasn't asked her one question yet.
222 - really has problems picking up on sarcasm. Says he does not believe claim.
232 - immediately backs off when questioned and unvotes.

Not sure what it all means right now. Still get a scummy feel here, playing a timid scum style.

vote pyro

because I like to use my vote and this is a good place for now.

VOTE COUNT:

G-Force - 2: Erratus Apathos, curiouskarmadog
PyroDwarf - 1: bionicchop2
Scheherezad - 1: Riceballtail
babygirl86 - 1: Xtoxm
orangepenguin - 1: G-Force

Not voting: Rhinox, Scheherazade, PyroDwarf

Takes 7 to lynch.

[bionicchop2]

since when did content = town? I understand lurker sometimes = scum, but I am not sure I understand Bio and OP's "discussion". Unless the arguement is really inconsistency.

Where did anybody say content = town? You are stretching what the conversation actually was IMO. Posting game-related content is far more pro-town than the opposite. This does not mean scum can't post heavy game-content all game. Most just tend not to because it is harder for players to make legitimate arguments and points when they know they aren't really pushing a town agenda. Skilled scum can blend in content-wise, but unskilled scum pull a lot of the 'there is nothing to post about', 'OMG I have no idea what is going on' and piggy-back onto the arguments of others - not as frequently initiating their own line of questioning on a new player.

My single post "discussion" with OP is just to point out the flaw in his argument of equality between his posts and GF's posts.

[bionicchop2]

that equality is based on what exactly?..content. Why did you point on that his posts were more content rich than OP's? What was the purpose?

To point out that OP's argument was flawed (as I stated in my previous post). If I post 'x' # of posts and another player posts 'x' # of posts, but my posts are all pictures of my ass while the other player posts related to the game, they are obviously not equal. If the other person calls me out on not posting game content (also known as active lurking and is a scum tactic), a defense of "we both posted 'x' number of times is invalid. G-Force just happened to be the other player in the equation since he is the one who called out OP.

Now my question for you - why are you trying to stretch my statements into some kind of diluted 'G-Force is town for posting content' statement? 1st you change the statement to 'content = town'. Then you change the focus of my original statement to somehow be about G-Force posting more content than OP. This may seem semantic, but the focus was that OP was posting LESS content that the person he was claiming to have equal posting with.

OP is one of my top suspects (pretty interchangeable with pyro TBH) so I am pressing him on something I feel is scummy. Do you feel that low-content posting is not anti-town and potentially scummy? If so, I would like your reasoning.

[bionicchop2]

OP made a fallacious statement.

I called OP out on it.

That is the bare bones reasoning for the 'discussion' I had. He basically said 1 apple is equal to 1 orange because they are the same number.

I think scum are more likely to make posts which make little to no effort to find scum and town players who do the same are playing in an anti-town manner. Saying that town players do it, so they shouldn't be called out on it is simply allowing a meta of bad play to exist and take over the site.

If you want to defend OP based on his meta, by all means go ahead and link / describe why his actions are pro-town. I don't plan on doing it at this very moment.

mod

- my vote on pyro is not showing up in your latest vote count.

Thanks, fixed.

[bionicchop2]

oh, I can definitely get on board with this wagon.

unvote: pyro; vote: OP

[bionicchop2]

If he would have claimed doctor I would have been more suspect since that is a more common scum claim. I haven't seen a vigilante fake claim yet, so for now I am going to buy it and

unvote

. Not sure why the claim at 4 votes, but meh. Quick claim seems to be the name of the game today.

Going back to my original

vote: pyro

. Will also look closer at BG before having a more critical look at the more active players.

VOTE COUNT:

G-Force - 2: curiouskarmadog, orangepenguin
PyroDwarf - 1: bionicchop2
Scheherezad - 1: Riceballtail
babygirl86 - 1: Xtoxm
orangepenguin - 3: G-Force, Juls, Erratus Apathos

Not voting: Rhinox, Scheherazade, PyroDwarf

7.

[bionicchop2]

@bionicchop2: I'm not sure I understand your case against PyroDwarf. I notice that you said "Not sure what it all means right now." That's sort of how I feel looking at Pyro and at your case against him. Do you have any further thoughts? I didn't notice a reaction to Pyro's post, number 257.

He hasn't done any scum hunting.

[bionicchop2]

I figure that directing OP's kills is the best way to minimize our risks.

Directing his kill by a vote allows scum to have influence over his kill and also may talk him away from killing someone he suspects who might turn out to be scum. We would also have to find out if he was a 1-shot vig then decide if we want to use it now. By not directing him, we don't need to alert scum to if he has 1 shot or unlimited. Also, if scum has a blocker, they will likely let a shot go through if we vote for a town player to die, but block if scum is going to be shot. This could also get into WIFOM if they just block.

[bionicchop2]

Thumbs up for Rhino understanding the concept of what I was getting at (the meter thing is a bit of a stretch, but overall you have my point down).

I also agree with Rhino's point about the SK/Vig. Having it out in the open gives the town an advantage since we can monitor the kills and hold OP responsible if they are questionable intheir targets.

I disagree about the policy lynching on D1. If there is any time to policy lynch, it would be on day 1, but not until after other discussions have occurred. While a lynch of a lurker may not directly reveal new information (though you may catch scum), it does serve a purpose. If scum is in a game where someone lurking is lynched, they would be forced to remain active and post often enough to avoid the same results.

[bionicchop2]

I really don't like that whole appeal to emotion which just occurred. Nobody said to put your family on hold for anything. If it is major and will impact your play then, yes you should definitely replace out and take care of your family.

[bionicchop2]

OP - I must say the change in style since you claimed is for the better and your posts are much...juicier??

Not to go into a theory debate, but I think this is the flaw of power roles trying to lay low or whatever. It might actually even make it easier for scum to find power roles and it usually ends up in a claim being forced by votes. A better option is to probably play as vanilla. I find myself listing power roles right up in the top of almost every scum list I do and I think it hurts the town in the long run.

[bionicchop2]

I hope your mother gets well.

[bionicchop2]

Your vote against PyroDwarf isn't producing much useful content from him. Does his response in post 257 mitigate your suspicion at all? You seem pretty content to drop your vote there and wait rather than use it to press more from him. Is there anything that I'm missing?

Good question. I am not sure exactly what I expect to happen from my vote. IMO people either agree his lack of contribution is scummy and worthy of a vote, or it isn't. Part of the reason such a play style works for scum is because there isn't much I can do to persuade others on it. I think there is a good chance he could be scum and he makes a good day 1 lynch for this reason. The flip side is there is not much specifically to be pointed out that just screams 'scum' about him.

His response in 257 did little. Yes he did identify a few points in my original post which he felt he had a reason for. What he didn't do was roll from that post where he defends himself (kind of) into any form of post which works to identify any players who could be scum.

[bionicchop2]

UNVOTE; VOTE:BG86

Your mom was in the ER, yes, but she would either be admitted or discharged by now. I've seen this done before when she was scum, and so I'm not buying it.

She is gone now, so this will need to be brought up with her replacement. In the meantime a link would be useful here.

[bionicchop2]

for sure

unvote:pyro ; vote:vollkan

.

Obviously you will be given a chance to say what you can to try to salvage the day for yourself. 2 links of examples where she quit as scum when there was heat put on her is pretty damning.

[bionicchop2]

at this point, i think at least one person should unvote (bringing him to -2)...and vollkan should claim.

This confuses me. Why unvote for him to claim? L-1 is just fine.


I will read all of Vollkan's stuff today if I can.

[bionicchop2]

I have the distinct impression that none of you have given two seconds thought to the broader picture here and are drawing general conclusions about what BG does as scum based on just two games whilst ignoring her play more widely.

Do any of your links contain games where she quit as town? I already knew she was a poor player and I don't care to read more examples of her playing poorly. It is the quitting whenever she is not town and somebody puts heat on her (yes you can have heat without votes).

[bionicchop2]

at this point, i think at least one person should unvote (bringing him to -2)...and vollkan should claim.

This confuses me. Why unvote for him to claim? L-1 is just fine.


I will read all of Vollkan's stuff today if I can.

what confuses you?..I dont want him to be quick hammered but I still want a claim.

also please dont answer a request with a question.

please reinstate why you are voting vollkan?

What confuses me is there is no good reason for anybody to unvote, so your request for this to happen is very odd. Most claims are done at L-2 or L-1 without the removal of votes. The fact vollkan is stating it in a manner where he won't claim unless someone unvotes is doing nothing to persuade me.

Also, I will not re-state my reason for voting since it is clearly stated in my vote post. If you have a specific question about my reason, then I will answer it.

[bionicchop2]

you dont want to hear what he has to say so we can evaluate tomorrow?

Where did vollkan state he will not claim unless someone unvotes.

and so that I understand,

vollkan are you refusing to claim?

My mistake on the unvote part. I just remembered he was saying he wouldn't claim unless... and mixed the finish with what you were saying.

Also, I am not seeing anyplace I even implied I didn't want to hear what he has to say. Could you quote where you are getting that impression from please?

I see where she lurks and gets replaced in games (maybe mods should just not allow her to join), but I only see one instance of her getting pissed and asking to replace out when she is called on her lack of activity - in that case she was certainly not town.

[bionicchop2]

you are questioning why i want someone to unvote (keeping him away from a quick lynch)..one of those reasons is because I want to here what a completely different player has to say in BG's position..the other..I want a claim.

Both can be accomplished without an unvote. I have not played a game on this site yet where somebody hammered before a player was able to claim. It has been made pretty clear we are at L-1. He was intentionally put at L-1 where the next step is to make a claim.

Not seeing a need for an unvote does not translate to not wanting to hear what someone has to say. Painting it as such (you did with your question) is scummy.

VOTE COUNT:

vollkan - 6: Xtoxm, orangepenguin, Riceballtail, mrfixij, bionicchop2, Erratus Apathos
G-Force - 1: curiouskarmadog
orangepenguin - 1: babygirl86
mrfixij - 1: G-Force

Not voting: Rhinox, Scheherazade, PyroDwarf

7 votes will lynch.

Speaking of votes - everybody better get out to the polls today - nonvoters, be wary of the modkill.

/jk. But vote.

[bionicchop2]

you dont want to hear what he has to say so we can evaluate tomorrow?

Not seeing a need for an unvote does not translate to not wanting to hear what someone has to say. Painting it as such (you did with your question) is scummy.

you asked, why I asked for an unvote..and I told you...I dont want a quick hammer. I dont understand why you dont get why I was asking.

You are swapping questions and answers a little haphazardly. I don't know if it is intentional or not.

You asked me this question:

you dont want to hear what he has to say so we can evaluate tomorrow?

and I responded:

Not seeing a need for an unvote does not translate to not wanting to hear what someone has to say. Painting it as such (you did with your question) is scummy.

So, you asking for the unvote was not necessarily scummy. It seemed odd to me which is why I stated it was confusing and I questioned you on it. I haven't once stated the action on its own was scummy. The follow up responses have been slightly scummy.

so you say it is scummy....question....is it only scummy if he hangs and flips scum?...or town?..or is it scummy no matter vollkan's alignment? Just trying to see if you are setting up for a lynch tomorrow, no matter the result of today...if you are..maybe I am the one you should be pushing for a lynch today...follow up question....which is scummier...my perceived mischaracteration of your statement or BG's meta?

I think all this mess comes from assuming I said the request for an unvote is scummy? No matter what Vollkan turns out to be, your unvote request seems odd and your responses after have seemed scummy.

For your follow-up question, my vote reflects who I currently find the scummiest. My words have been twisted by many town players ranging from vanilla to cop. If it is done intentionally, it is scummy. If not, it is just misunderstanding. The trick is determining which is occurring now and I haven't decided.

[bionicchop2]

I find laying down ground work for a lynch tomorrow as scummy...

You better make a list of every player who said they are suspicious of more than one person then.

why was my request strange(scummy)?..have you not ever seen it before in this situation?

It is odd because it is uneccessary. In most games the player is left at L-1 until they make their claim and only unvoted afterwards if enough reason to doubt the lynch is presented.

[bionicchop2]

Do any of your links contain games where she quit as town? I already knew she was a poor player and I don't care to read more examples of her playing poorly. It is the quitting whenever she is not town and somebody puts heat on her (yes you can have heat without votes).

It's interesting that you of all people are asking me this - it shows the level of homework done by my accusers. I admit I haven't looked at all her games yet, and only the two you identify are where I can see that she actually voiced a quit

My 'homework' has shown no such game where she has a little hissy fit and leaves as town, hence the question for you. If you found something I did no, then it is your responsibility to enlighten me.

However, your question is entirely ill-conceived. You're presuming an alignment link (in one game and I am trying to find it, after the game, she even said something like "I like being mafia") with her actively quitting (as opposed to lurking off), but of course the other link to draw is that, when she quits, she is pressured for her inactivity. Otherwise she just gives up on her own and lurks off. The point here is that she abandons games regularly - something that you all ignored. It's pretty damn clear her lurking is intentional.

I don't doubt she likes being mafia. I also don't doubt she throws a hissy fit when she is called out for lurking and twice it has shown her to be anti-town. Any examples where she is town and did the same would help balance this (see original request). If a player does 'x' twice and both times turns out to be scum, then 'x' generally becomes a scum tell. There is limited information to work with in the world of mafia. Repeated behavior when one is not town (and behavior which is not present when the player is town) is a pretty good indicator of alignment.

What confuses me is there is no good reason for anybody to unvote, so your request for this to happen is very odd. Most claims are done at L-2 or L-1 without the removal of votes. The fact vollkan is stating it in a manner where he won't claim unless someone unvotes is doing nothing to persuade me.

1) You don't need a "good reason" to unvote. You just need to have your attacks rebutted. NOBODY has refuted what I have said. In other words, the wagon on me is effectively baseless.

2) You are twisting my words. My position on claiming was fairly simple: I wanted to hear people's reactions to my defence. I'm of the view that, if prospects of a successful defence are strong, then claiming is not an immediate priority. I said nothing about people unvoting.

1) Reasons to unvote are just as important as reasons to vote.

2) Read the rest of the thread. I corrected myself on this statement.

I see where she lurks and gets replaced in games (maybe mods should just not allow her to join), but I only see one instance of her getting pissed and asking to replace out when she is called on her lack of activity - in that case she was certainly not town.

So what? You're now basically shifting the entire ground of your case to nothing more than the fact that she has previously quit as scum. As I have said, rather than drawing an alignment link, there are other reasonable explanations when you look at things more globally - most obviously that she doesn't like being pressured to post.

We don't have evidence of a consistent meta trend that says she only "quits" as scum. We have two games which, as I have indicated, have circumstances which make them very dubious evidence for the proposition your case rests upon.

This is more evidence than there is against any other player. I don't expect to find fingerprints, a smoking gun, a photo of a player holding an "I am mafia" sign or anything like that. I look for indicators that a player is more likely to be scum than any other player. Right now that is you based on the behavior of your predecessor.

Could people make a post consisting of

Claim

or

Don't claim

to decide how to deal with this. I object to claiming if the case against me is weak and, right now, it is on dialysis, to say the least.

It is your call on how you need to act. Depends which action you feel helps the town more. Surveying others for how you should act? I can tell you I likely won't unvote if there is no claim. We have a deadline in 3 days (+x) and there is no other wagon equally appealing.

[bionicchop2]

for sure

unvote:pyro ; vote:vollkan

.

Obviously you will be given a chance to say what you can to try to salvage the day for yourself. 2 links of examples where she quit as scum when there was heat put on her is pretty damning.

"heat put on her"? Really? Because, from where I am sitting, there was very little suspicion on her in both of those games and her quitting basically just reflects her laziness and inability to read up. It spins a nice story to make out she cracks under pressure, but you ignore all facts.

Vollkan, your story has changed from your original post. When I made the statement that she quits as scum when pressure was put on her, you questioned that and said there was no pressure on her. Now your basic argument is that she quits when pressured, not that she quits when scum. Please clarify which argument you plan on using to defend yourself, because it is very hard to debate against a shifting argument.

VOTE COUNT:

vollkan - 5: orangepenguin, Riceballtail, mrfixij, bionicchop2, Erratus Apathos
orangepenguin - 1: babygirl86
mrfixij - 1: G-Force

Not voting: Rhinox, Scheherazade, PyroDwarf, Xtoxm, curiouskarmadog

7 votes makes a lynch.

[bionicchop2]

Huh? Pretty sure we are not deadlined.

Are you mixing up your games, Bio?

You play with me too much...

Yes. The deadline is in Haschel's game. I was thinking as I drove back to work from lunch that I was going to mix those two specific games up. Little did I know I had already done it during lunch. Having trouble keeping straight which game you and RBT are masons in and which game you guys are just playing poorly

[bionicchop2]

You haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying.

I said she quits when pressure is placed upon her to post - (because of said pressure, not because of alignment). As opposed to where suspicion pressure is placed upon her.

The game where she called everybody an ass for suspecting her even though mellow was doing the same thing is quitting because she was pressured to post?

[bionicchop2]

Before you get semantic on me, she didn't actually call anybody an ass. The actual phrase was 'screw you people'.

[bionicchop2]

She got voted once and called scum. She then flipped out and quite.

Hi there. 'Lay, so, I'm going to open my posting in this game with a vote: babygirl86, on account of her lack of an explanation for her hammer on Zombie yesterday, plus teh generally lurkerish way she appears to have played the game so far. She's the scummiest player here, in my estimation.

A) you must not know how to read because I've explained my actions numerous times. and B) I'm not gonna say this is right, but I'm definately not the only person not posting here so dont even go there. I have a life outside of mafia and if my amount of posting isn't up to your standards, deal with it. I'm not changing my lifestyle to get a vote taken off of me.

Point out to me exactly where you actually made a case against Zombie. Or indeed mentioned him before voting for him. Or did anything other than jump on a wagon without explanation. Then decide to post genuine content other than filler on the rare occasions you post. I mean, it's okay to be too busy to post often as long as you actually help. You aren't.

you know what? screw you people.

mod please replace me

[bionicchop2]

Juls/mrfixij: I was leaning scum on her,

tbh

. Her page 4 summary was not very helpful, seemd liked forced scum hunting. SHe focuses on the mason team, then on the vig. G-force puts on some pressure about her leaving her vote on OP, then she quits. Mrfixij has one post, and its good, so we shall see.

CKD - I underlined something for you (although your rant about the phrase being a scum tell may have only been because you were bussing your partner in the game I read)

It seems that a lot of people had Xtoxm and rbt in their crosshairs. I think BG was a good lynch candidate, but we have evidince where she plays bad on both sides of the scum-ball. I wanna see what people say about my list here before i place my vote. I got 2 people in mind.

My issue with your list is I can't tell at all who your suspects are on it. It pretty much reads like you think everybody is probably town.

At the end, you have 2 people in mind who you might vote for, but you are waiting for others to talk about your list. Why? Unless your vote is the hammer on somebody, get it out there and publicly express your suspicions.

[bionicchop2]

Holy hell, didn't even notice this.

Wait, what? people are buying the mason claim? I'm not sure i understand. On N0, you guys picked someone at random to attack? Color me confused.
I have never been in a game with masons,how likely is it that they are both scum? Or would that just be way to huge of a gambit for scum to risk?

Juls/mrfixij: I was leaning scum on her, tbh. Her page 4 summary was not very helpful, seemd liked forced scum hunting.

SHe focuses on the mason team

, then on the vig. G-force puts on some pressure about her leaving her vote on OP, then she quits. Mrfixij has one post, and its good, so we shall see.

Bold for emphasis. Using a critique for my predecessor that he makes only 5 posts before. Explain yourself, now.

I am obviously in the 'pyro for scum' fan club, but I think this post from you is off. For one, this is kind of a twist on the same thing you were called out for by G-Force. Also, I actually understand what he was saying in the first post because (I think) RBT made a sarcastic post about being scum and bussing each other which could have been confusing if you don't realize it is sarcasm. I mentioned him missing the sarcasm in my PbPa of Pyro. I think in this case it was pretty obvious the post by RBT just went over his head and I am not sure what you are trying to point out here.

[bionicchop2]

the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said).

You are focusing on half the case against her. She was under suspicion for her hammer the day before and Dizzy brought that issue up anew upon replacement.

Hi there. 'Lay, so, I'm going to open my posting in this game with a vote: babygirl86, on account of her lack of an explanation for her hammer on Zombie yesterday, plus teh generally lurkerish way she appears to have played the game so far. She's the scummiest player here, in my estimation.

A) you must not know how to read because I've explained my actions numerous times.

Point out to me exactly where you actually made a case against Zombie. Or indeed mentioned him before voting for him. Or did anything other than jump on a wagon without explanation.

[bionicchop2]

Start on page 9 of that game vollkan. You will see she got up to 5 votes on her then semi-lurked. She then posted about her lurking when Mellowman voted for her lurking (he was the only one on the wagon to do so). She made one post, then made a post later in the day where she flipped out in CAPS LOCK. She then disappeared and did not show up again until she had no votes on her. When attention started to turn back to her, she flipped out again.

Now you will notice another similarity in this game. When there is no attention on her, that is when she has internet problems, family issues or school issues and just pops in to say as much. Whenever her name is brought up (posts 210,218) she is always on shortly after to respond (posts 216,217, 219, 223). This was Thursday and she claimed her mother went into the emergency room that Monday. She then disappears for 3 days while the conversation goes elsewhere. Then when Xtoxm is asked if his vote on BG is because she is still inactive after getting her internet back, she has her post about how she already told us her mom was in the emergency room and uses a huge appeal to emotion in an attempt to make people feel bad for suspecting her.

Even if you excluded all other games and this was her first game, that would be scummy. Add in the other games where she got emotional and angry as support and it is more incriminating IMO.

[bionicchop2]

That's just it! As I said "the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said)." She'd given a lousy explanation for the vote and people wanted her to explain it. She is, as I keep saying, a "lazy" player - so she got pissed off.

NO, no, no, no, no, and no. Read the damn game. The attack was centered on her hammering ZS the previous day. How can you say people wanting her to explain her vote is having an attack centered on her level of posting? The attack was centered on the hammer.

[bionicchop2]

I wouldn't like to use a previous player's meta as basis for a lynch unless it was 100% locked down - volkan has shown that its not even close to a solid meta. I also don't like your statement about the deadline we don't have. Maybe you confused it from another game, but thats not a mistake someone should make. Its like saying you lost track of the vote count. I now have to assume that your stance towards volkan was based on the thinking that we were under deadline. Does your opinion now change, knowing that we're not under deadline?

1. If it isn't painfully clear, my vote originally placed on BG for meta reasons is staying on vollkan for the varying levels of shifting arguments and misleading statements since joining. If 4 people vote for reason x and 1 person votes for reason y, he is here trying to tell us that reason y is the central reason for the suspicion on BG. It is clear to anybody who reads that game he is twisting that.

2. The error was corrected within an hour of making it. I am active in 7 games, which normally isn't a problem, but since one of my other games has xtoxm and RBT in it I did make a mistake. I can't see how this is scummier than being intentionally misleading. My original reason for voting vollkan and reasons for staying there are not deadline related, but it was the reason I felt a claim should have been that day thinking we would need time to find a new wagon if the claim was worthy of unvoting.

[bionicchop2]

Mason is one of the worst claims for mafia to make

Why is this? I've never played in a game with masons before, nor have I been a mason. Why is it one of the worst claims for mafia to make?

Especially on d1, masons is a horrible scum claim and the risk vs. reward just doesn't balance out. If either player turns up scum during the game, the other is an auto-lynch. Only the best players could argue their way out of a mason claim when their 'partner' turns up scum. Now if this was close to endgame, mafia might pull a gambit if the numbers worked out where they felt they could gain enough trust to push enough mislynches for the win.

[bionicchop2]

Rhinox:

1. I never voted bg for just lurking and playing poorly which she does regardless of alignment. I voted because of the quitting and storming off which she has only done previously as scum. I have made this point clear IMO. As vollkan has defended himself, his defense has used misleading statements and his argument has morphed. If vollkan claimed vanilla I probably would not unvote.

2. I think vollkan is actually out of claim territory now as there have been unvotes. I don't feel he needs to claim now if enough people are convinced he is not scum. Claiming IMO is just a safeguard against lynching power roles. While I wanted a claim, I do respect the decision to try and talk the wagon down without claiming as most people tend to use roles like free passes to act scummy. I think there may be a slight misunderstanding about me not unvoting unless he claims (or maybe I misspoke). While he was at L-1, yes I was going to hold my vote for a claim. Now that L-1 is gone, only having vollkan as my top suspect will keep my vote there and if I find a better place for my vote it will move. I won't just tunnel in on vollkan and ignore the rest of the players.

=======

As for the masons - no it definitely is not suicide. One thing I do know about xtoxm though is he does not gambit much and he is not an exceptionally skilled liar by his own admission outside games. I haven't seen a fake claim from Xtoxm yet (outside of claiming vanilla as scum) and I don't think RBT plays that way either. This isn't to say I don't expect them to ever make a fake claim as mafia, but I find it unlikely mason would be the first choice. So, for me, that is definitely giving an early game pass through d1 and possibly d2. Closer to end game I could consider them being scum if both happen to still be alive.

[bionicchop2]

Just popping in to say that I'm not sold either way on the volkan issue. There are good points being raised on both sides, but I think it would be better to let him live and try to get a read on his behavior this game rather than relying on meta arguments.

That would be fine and dandy if a case was made against somebody else. If you are unsure on somebody day 1 but think there is a good chance they could be scum, then that is usually a great place to lynch. Vollkan is a very skilled debater. If he is scum, he isn't going to make many obvious scum mistakes on his own.

[bionicchop2]

So basically what you're using here is a subtle circular reasoning. You're basically accusing volkan of being good at the game. And since he's good at the game, if he's scum he's not going to be making any glaring mistakes. And since he hasn't made a glaring mistake in his defense, he must be scum...

Did I say he was scum for not making mistakes? I have pointed out cases where I think facts were intentionally skewed and I feel strongly that BG was scum. I just feel the further away we get from the scummy actions of BG, people will be more likely to forget them.

[bionicchop2]

lol @ obliterating the case. You can overstate your awesome defense as much as you want. I

feel

your defense was scattered and weak. I have read your awesome outline of your standards of play (you listed them clearly in one of the games I read where you were scum) and I honestly don't care how much you love or hate someone using the word feel.

[bionicchop2]

My defence wasn't scattered and weak.

Yes, that is what I said and I pointed it out in my posts.

There's very little in this game which really perturbs me. I'm open to all sorts of playstyles and all sorts of tactics. But I have absolutely no tolerance for gut-based play.

And I have an equal tolerance for word-twisting and grandiose overstatements.

legitimising emotional, reasonless play is a recipe for disaster for the town.

I have provided reasons for my 'feelings'. Don't forget that suspicions are rooted in feel as there is no concrete evidence in the game of mafia. There are no finger prints, no DNA, no video surveillance. The game is not a simple equation of x + y = z. There is a human element which is constantly changing. I have to decide how I think you would act as mafia based on limited information. Gut and feelings are all a simplistic way of expressing a subconscious understanding of the events going on around you. I am a poker player, so things like 'gut' which is really just a flash recollection of a player (or the collective of all opponents) and how they respond to certain actions is crucial - even though the game has many statistical factors to it. I will admit I am fairly new to playing mafia and I have not translated those instincts to the game yet. With that said, I used the word feel in the instance you quoted in the same manner I would use the word 'believe' or the phrase 'in my opinion'. I just felt like poking at you because you jumped on it with your code of vollkan.

But what I can do is show your BS for what it is.

and vice versa.

And so, I issue you both a simple challenge:
Provide reasons that show that either I or BG are scummy to the point of justifying a vote

Already done. Isolated my posts and reread if you must, but no reason for me to repeat myself (as you have done this entire game - only shifting your arguments as you did).

If I was to run a list like you did with your starting 50 value, the reasons I have previously stated move your character into the portion above 50 (no, I am not going to make a list right now, so don't ask). You are the furthest past 50 as far as my suspicion goes which is why my vote is there.

If I haven't given either of you a reasonable doubt by now, I never will.

This we can agree on.

[bionicchop2]

Because otherwise, my gut feeling or flash recollection is that you simply have a strong confirmation bias towards volkan, and you haven't done anything to show his defenses are scattered and weak - you simply wave them off as unimportant because "volkan is a skilled debater and good and defending himself, so I don't trust him"

You could try to read better if this was all you saw. It really isn't hard to isolate a person's posts and read them all (I have only made 44 posts which you would have to reread - 45 now with this one). Instead you ask me to waste my time repeating myself.

We have either reached the point where you agree with me or don't. The next phase is for you to determine if my opinion makes me scummy (and make a case if this is so). If that is not the case, then it would be anti-town to continue along a circular argument where many back and forth counter-arguments have been made. The game then turns into a filibuster where in the end nobody cares about either side of the argument enough for it to be vote-worthy. I feel this is what is being attempted by vollkan (oh no I said feel again).

[bionicchop2]

I disagree with Bio's case against volkan. I feel that volkan has given an adequate defense against the meta argument agains BG.

Vollkan's base argument is that the pressure on BG in the linked game was based on her lurking. I identified this as incorrect since she was actually under pressure for quick-hammering the previous day and gathered quite a few votes then. Her subsequent lurking got her out of trouble until a new player replaced in and brought the hammer up again.

He then twisted it to be that she was being attacked for not explaining and her not explaining was a result of her inactivity / laziness, thus she was being attacked for inactivity / laziness. That is quite an assumption to know her reason for not explaining (even though she argued she had already explained) and assuming that all others knew her reason for not explaining was laziness / inactivity.

Don't be so easily swayed by long posts full of quotes and assertive statements by someone with confidence.

[bionicchop2]

tl;dr

[bionicchop2]

oh noes! A vote from a semi-inactive player who just happens to be my 2nd suspect!

@Rhinox, I will try to respond to any of your points directed at me in your longer post today. I was on my phone yesterday and only made it about halfway through. I didn't feel like dealing with quoting and any lengthy response while on a 2" screen.

[bionicchop2]

why does it matter that I'm #2 on your list?

you waited for my vote to be off you just long enough to not be considered omgus.

Please identify how responding to questions and responses to the meta case (i have bee repeatedly been asked to clarify things and challenged by vollkan on specifics) is soething scum is more likely to do than a town player.

[bionicchop2]

Don't, when I flip out and say I have to go to the doctor, I get a free town pass.

[bionicchop2]

Also EA, I disagree with your argument against me and reason for voting.

[bionicchop2]

I believe that the drawn out meta argument is distracting for the rest of the town.
You are the main driving force pushing the meta argument.

So, if soebody asks e a question about it, asks for clarification, or makes a statement I view as false when presenting a defense, I should just ignore those in fear of distracting other players? Perhaps that explains why you have posted nothing of content all game.

[bionicchop2]

It seemd like you really wanted to lynch Voll based on BG's meta, even when it was shown that she was a bad player on both sides of the field.

Just because you were convinced doesn't mean I am. Let me know the next time others form an opinion and I am supposed to blindly change mine to match theirs.

You still haven't said how I am distracting the town by answering questions and pointing out flaws in arguments. What exactly am I distracting from? What other discussions have occurred that I have stopped from proceeding? When I log in and read, I try to address any recent posts. If I see a new conversation going on, I will generally try to follow that. If I see a post dismissing my previous arguments, I will respond to that as I see fit.

The conversation cannot continue if only 1 person participates. If the conversation is distracting, how is one person worthy of a vote, but not the others?

[bionicchop2]

i was just pointing out that his usual anylitical self became sarcastic and hostile when i pointed out his drawn out meta argument.

When people take the time to post frequently and make valid points, I tend to give them better responses.

[bionicchop2]

Did I say he was scum for not making mistakes? I have pointed out cases where I think facts were intentionally skewed and I feel strongly that BG was scum. I just feel the further away we get from the scummy actions of BG, people will be more likely to forget them.

What scummy actions of BG do you mean?

Have I not been discussing this for the past several pages? You know, the whole meta thing somebody brought up, I agreed with and explored further and have been debating with several players for quite some time now. I guess I have to directly quote you and reply in that exact post or you might feel like I don't have reasons.

[bionicchop2]

you were arguing about a player who has been shown to play bad as scum and town, and trying to discredit vol by saying basically "beware his silver toung"

Oh, I understand now. You didn't read either.

[bionicchop2]

you were arguing about a player who has been shown to play bad as scum and town, and trying to discredit vol by saying basically "beware his silver toung"

Oh, I understand now. You didn't read either.

Now you're acting quite pompous... you're right.. aparently you write a much higher level for the rest of us to be able to read and understand, and that is why we (alledgedly) missed your messaged and were mesmerized by the mystical words of volkan.

You had your out when I asked you to summarize why you felt volkan's defense was inadequate, but I'm sorry you felt it was a waste of your time. Myself, pyro, ckd, EA, G-force, and I'm sure others have concluded that BG's meta was inconclusive evidence and that volkan had sufficiently pointed that out and defended himself (for now), so I guess we are all incapable of reading and understanding your posts. You are so obviously a much more advanced wordsmith than the rest of us, and your posts fly so far over our heads that we couldn't even begin to fatham what we were supposed to understand.

[/sarcasm]

How does this post relate to scum hunting and how was my discussion with Pyro important enough for you to type this awesome message about it? Do something besides debating for the sake of debating. Somebody minimizing everything I said into "beware of the silver tongue" obviously just skimmed over stuff, or is intentionally misrepresenting me, so it has nothing to do with posting over people's heads. I don't use any complex statements and I don't claim to post at a level people can't understand. I say exactly what I mean in as few words as possible, which is why I choose not to repeat myself. If somebody didn't care enough to read what I wrote the first time, then I am not confident they will care enough the 2nd time.

[bionicchop2]

i just didnt feel like bringing up every point you made because,well, people can read for them self.

Maybe, but this is a very slippery slope. Think of the game telephone. I said something, then someone else (you) interprets and restates it. The more this happens, the further from the actual statement it gets. When you summarize my posts as you did, others can read that and it can form their opinion of what my posts actually meant. The fact you took the part of all my posts that didn't really relate to why I thought he was acting scummy was frustrating.

I have seen a few examples of the entire meta-debate being over simplified and vollkan being hailed as the victor. Even the exact word - obliterated by both vollkan and rhinox - has been used by two players to describe how awesome his defense was. I know it isn't uncommon for similar words to be used, but this one stuck out to me when it happened since it was such an extreme statement about the events. It felt like an argument from repetition type thing. If simply said enough times, it becomes accepted as truth.

[bionicchop2]

I think now we will be able to judge vol by his own actions, rather than those of an across the board bad player.

Well, I will be waiting for his full analysis and I will see if that changes my opinion of him.

[bionicchop2]

mrfixij - I agree with most of your post. 2 points that deal with the people voting for me.

EA: Could you please explain to me why you have voted Bionicchop?

I see his reason (something I missed), but I will let him answer. I don't think this vote is unfounded.

Pyrodwarf: What the hell is the deal with your aggression on Bionic?

He isn't really being any more aggressive towards me than I am towards him. I only comment here because I don't see aggression as scummy and I don't want people deterred from it (especially when they were previously less active). A little back and forth with some sarcasm can help keep some people (me) from becoming apathetic towards forum mafia in general.

VOTE COUNT:

vollkan - 4: orangepenguin, Riceballtail, mrfixij, bionicchop2
mrfixij - 2: G-Force, Rhinox
bionicchop2 - 2: PyroDwarf, Erratus Apathos
orangepenguin - 1: vollkan
G-Force - 1: curiouskarmadog

Not voting: Scheherazade, Xtoxm

7 votes for a lynch.

[bionicchop2]

Of course I saw you argue the meta, as you may recall I even agreed with you before it was shown that BG acts similarly as town. I assume you have reason to believe that can't be the case in this game, if so what is it?

I disagree that it has been proven she acts similarly as town. Her actions of the appeal to emotion and fiery exit IMO match the example she set as scum. That is what I was talking about when I mentioned her previous scummy actions this game.

Also EA, I disagree with your argument against me and reason for voting.

Seeing as how I just dropped a vote with no explanation, how do you know what my argument against you and reason for voting are?

1. The initial post was sarcasm. You gave no explanation, so obviously I could not debate it.

2. No matter what your reason is, I will obviously disagree with it since I know you are wrong.

3. When I noticed your self quote on the page, I realized I had not responded to a question directly, so I later did become aware of why your vote was put on me (or at least I assumed that was the reason).

[bionicchop2]

I believe this day 1 is reaching a point of diminishing returns.

[bionicchop2]

Do you feel that you have anything new to bring to the vollkan case?

No.

If not, what other avenues are you interested in exploring? We have more than one mafia player, so I suspect you have more suspects than vollkan.

Currently I am not interested in pursuing any other avenues. I will continue to look for scum, but my vote is on my top suspect. I feel he is the best lynch for the day and the reveal on his affiliation will be very informative.

@bionichop2 and mrfixij: Any comments, responses, concerns, etc.? You two seem to be around.

I am not sure what this last question is referring to.

[bionicchop2]

I believe this day 1 is reaching a point of diminishing returns.

Diminishing returns: maybe. Loss of momentum: definitely. I'm curious as to why you felt it was necessary to bring this up though. It's as if you're advocating a faster end to D1.

Yes, that is exactly where my mind is right now. Note this is not the same as requesting a

fast

day 1. I just feel it has gone beyond the point of productivity. We already have outed 3 town role claims. If somebody brings up some new points that generate good discussion, then that is all fine and dandy. Right now I feel we need more information and the best source for that information is a productive lynch.

D1s that last 4+ weeks give me a case of the blahs and I consider myself a very active player. If it turns me slightly apathetic, I can imagine what it does to less talkative players.

[bionicchop2]

It's completely illegitimate that you think you can rely on the fact that you voted me pages back. Your vote must be justified at each point in time.

I completely disagree with this. If I still believe in my decision, I don't have to make up some new reason at each point in time just to appease people. Expecting that would lead to people forcing reasons into the game just to fit their opinion. I am not going to nit pick every point you make just to try and make myself look town.

As of now, I have destroyed the meta case, and I think my rebuttal of Shez's newest case has held up. You have offered absolutely

nothing

to justify continuing to have suspicion on me.

Not all of us are as convinced as you are by your own arguments. I just choose not to argue in circles with you.

The sense I am getting here is that nothing I can say or do could possibly avert the suspicion that you have of me.

At this point, I would agree. Things do change, but I don't think any direct action of you discussing something with me is going to convince me.

That's very important because it shows that the suspicions you have simply aren't based on anything.

I would like to understand this jump in logic. Just because you feel you have defended something to your satisfaction does not mean the original points do not exist and others no longer believe in them.

As of this point in time, the case against me is based on nothing other than the fact, in essence, that people didn't like BG's play. I think it's atrocious too, but it just wasn't scummy.

I have also shown that I disliked your defenses and felt you changed arguments and twisted words. We both have our own opinion on that though. I also see a PbPa by you which has 3 claimed town roles listed near the top and I see myself there. Since I know my affiliation and I am comfortable with the claimed roles at this time (masons first and vig 2nd because of the outside chance he could be SK) it means you are either a townie off your game or you are scum on your game.

Also, it's very telling that now you have started referring to the "information" value of my lynch. We don't have the threat of a deadline and we have no dearth of things to discuss. Information value is, as always, only a secondary factor. The primary point is lynching the person whom there are the most objective reasons to be scum. The mere fact that there has been so much discussion revolving around me doesn't at all justify my lynch..

I see you as most likely to be scum. I could start making assumptions based on that and analyze the style of people defending you and people questioning you, but that would be a worthless exercise without confirmation of your alignment. I have a secondary suspect in pyro, but my preference is to lynch my top suspect.

[bionicchop2]

Will respond to Schez and other Vollkan post later.

VOTE COUNT:

vollkan - 5: orangepenguin, Riceballtail, mrfixij, bionicchop2, Xtoxm
mrfixij - 1: G-Force
bionicchop2 - 1: PyroDwarf
orangepenguin - 1: vollkan
G-Force - 1: curiouskarmadog
Scheherazade - 1: Rhinox

Not voting: Scheherazade

7 votes for a lynch.

[bionicchop2]

@bionicchop2:

I didn't mean to be confusing. I was curious if you had any sort of reaction to PyroDwarf's post, which I quoted. You've stated strong suspicion of three players in this game. One claimed and was complimented by you on strong posting. One seems to have halted the forward momentum on his case. What do you think of the last one?

Pyro has slightly improved his posting, but he is still high on my suspect list. His vote on me for pursuing my beliefs on Vollkan and 'drawing out' the meta discussion has a slight chainsaw feel to it, but that obviously stems from my suspicion of vollkan.

[bionicchop2]

Will respond to Schez and other Vollkan post later.

I thought Vol's other post had a comment for me to respond to, but it didn't. I just saw my name and thought there was a question in there for me.

I will move onto this as I was looking to see what G-Force has been discussing lately:

I still think that the meta case against BG is unreliable. It's true that there is evidence that BG has more often blown up and requested replacement as scum than as town, but I am definitely unwilling to gamble that that is what happened this game, especially considering the gray areas that volkan has brought up. Supporters of the meta case treat it as definitive, which I think is a grossly incorrect.

I have no problem with your opinion the meta case is unreliable. My question to you would be - what is reliable? Any scum 'tell' is just an indicator of something scum do more often than town. It is still a percentage play. Your 'unwillingness to gamble' is a little unsettling. It gives the impression that nothing short of a cop investigation will convince you who is scum if you are not going to gamble on something which a player has done more often as scum than as town.

Also, I don't think anybody has said anything was definitive. Yes I am assertive in my belief, but I understand this is a game of mafia and nothing is concrete. I simply feel this is my best chance at catching scum on day 1. Nothing out there has convinced me somebody else is a more viable lynch.
=======
@ all - the last statement is a comment for everybody, especially in light of vollkan saying I need to provide new reasons for my vote being where it is at every point in time. I am going to vote somebody. My vote is on my top suspect. Nobody is making any solid case against anybody else in the game. I haven't seen anything else that strikes me to think someone else is more likely to be scum. All I can do is vote for my top suspect. I have no delusions of any ability to pick out all 3 scum in one day (I don't even have delusions about always catching one).

Now people can say they think the case against him is whatever - and are welcome to their opinion. I believe in what I have said though. The only thing that will move my vote is seeing something I feel is more suspicious that moves somebody up to the top of my list. We have 5 players with 1 vote on them, so obviously there is no overwhelming case against any of them.

[bionicchop2]

time for me to

unvote

I agree with some of the others when they say we are reaching diminishing returns. Vol says he considers claiming as "any last words".

Vote: vollkan

I am assuming that scum has alreasdy slipped their vote on him, so that would mean bio, mrfixij or OP. Or i could be wrong, wich is equally as likley.
I agree with Xtoxm's post 520.
I don't know if vollkan flipping town will be a guaranteed Bio lynch, but that will probably be where a lot of people start looking. Bio has already said, he is just voting for his top suspect, what else should we do on day one, wait for some to slip up and claim scum?

That was quite a loaded post there. I can't tell if you think vollkan is scum or town by this post. It appears that you think he is town, but are lynching him anyway. You seem very sure he will turn up town and that scum are already voting for him. I see 1 person I know is town (me) 2 people I am confident are town (RBT / Xtoxm) One who can really only be SK if he isn't town (OP) and 1 I have no clue about (mrfixij).

I have no issues with being under the microscope if vollkan turns up town. I stand by my convictions and have no problem dealing with the consequences if they turn out to be incorrect.

[bionicchop2]

vollkan - just make your move and vote for me. No reason to dance around what you have gradually been moving towards. I won't even accuse you of OMGUS, I promise. Let's give the players 2 options for todays lynch and see what is decided. If we are both town, we are going to have this issue until one of us is gone anyway.

The reasons you give (I didn't see the votes on the previous page) would all be fine and dandy if I knew you were town. Since I think you are scum, reasons like claiming not to see something do not convince me that there was not an ulterior motive for your actions and argument.

Again, if I believe my initial reasons for voting, I do not need new reasons to keep my vote there.

You are at L-1. It is time for you to claim. At this point if you don't, it will be straight refusal since multiple people have asked for it and you were given plenty of time to talk your wagon down. It has subsequently built back up to its original position and the proper course of action is for you to claim.

[bionicchop2]

Claim: Doctor

.

Lynch the liar.

I am [/u]the[/u] doctor.

[bionicchop2]

EBWOP

Claim: Doctor

.

Lynch the liar.

I am

the

doctor.

[bionicchop2]

braadcrumb #1 in post #275

If he would have claimed doctor I would have been more suspect since that is a more common scum claim.

braadcrumb #2 in post #455

Don't, when I flip out and say I have to go to the doctor, I get a free town pass.

[bionicchop2]

My official role name is

the town doctor

.

[bionicchop2]

OP - you know what to do if a doctor gets lynched today.

Well played though vollkan. You made me waste a lot of time. This is why I wanted you to claim immediately when you replaced in.

For the town - remember that scum is almost always the initial claim and the counter claim is almost always town. There is no incentive for scum to counter claim and out themselves trying to get a doctor lynched. Scum have guns and can kill doctors at night since this site frowns on self-protecting doctors.

[bionicchop2]

I think we may have 2 doctors. For some reason i'm inclined to believe vollkan's claim. It certainly explains why BG was playing so terribly (doctor advocates bad play, or so I've read) and why Vollkan has been so slippery.

Read my role name. It is specific and leaves no room for multiples.

[bionicchop2]

I still think pyro is scum also. Look at the weak chainsaw he put on me and then the vote switch to vollkan last minute when momentum was shifting back towards lynching him.

Now that I have confirmation of my suspicions on vollkan, I will try to find any possible pairings to help for tomorrow.

[bionicchop2]

UNVOTE; VOTE:Pryo

New strategy, neither one of you hangs, and we watch how it unfolds.

<sarcasm> Any VTs wanna claim? It'd be a nice change. </sarcasm>

I firmly believe it is a bad idea to ever let both claims live (unless you think both could be true). We end up in the same discussion tomorrow and I won't vote for anybody else when I know somebody is scum.

[bionicchop2]

Bio if you really are doc i'm disappointed you CCed

Too many delayed CCs have lead to the town claimer being lynched. He would not be lynched if I did not CC and then when I did CC my claim would be less believable.

[bionicchop2]

Just to clarify, I can guarantee at least a few town players would never hammer a claimed doc even if it is the most common scum claim. My life is more valuable in outing one scum than the 33% shot of saving one of the basically confirmed power roles.

The kill me n1, which means they aren't killing any potential cops. After that, they target the other confirmed roles which also means no cop killing (if we have one). Cop claims once they have a guilty.

[bionicchop2]

Wow, I thought he was kidding about just one partner.

Yeah ice, games with SK still have 3 scum normally. Giving the town the same number of power roles as normal (even with a mafia RB) is a little skewed for town.

I generally am not a great fan of SKs because they do add an element of luck to the game. Scum can play a good game and get offed by the SK for being too convincing as town.

I think you modded well though.

Side note - I prefer to always counter claim immediately for many reasons (unless I suspect multiple of the same role). The obvious is a scum power role as possible. The other is it becomes harder to get the proper lynch in later days. As a power role, I feel my life is always worth exchanging for the life of 1 scum. A 1 for 1 trade generally favors the town IMO. It also becomes easier to find scum when some scum are already found.

[bionicchop2]

The one thing I feel took away from the enjoyment of this game was the whole BG replacement factor. That was a real drag - I can't speak for you players, but for me it was painful to watch vollkan get punished for BG's poor play and abandonment of the game - if I was playing I'm sure I would have been on vollkan's wagon, but nonetheless, it was unfortunate.

Generally a player replacing in should expect to come into a bad situation (I am sure Vollkan did). Some are obviously worse than others - as was BG leaving in a fit. Vollkan played admirably in that position. I haven't replaced into many games where the player I replaced didn't have a decent scum stain on them.