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

[vollkan]

Hey everybody.

I'll read up and post my thoughts shortly. (I am in the middle of my exams right now, so don't expect me to go too quickly )

[vollkan]

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.

I am reading now, but I realise based on what people are saying that babygirl is under serious suspicion for quitting when under heat (which suggests she has committed other grounds for suspicion as well).

Just on her quitting:
I notice from reading her posts that she says her mother was in hospital. Is this, or similar sorts of justifications, also part of her meta for quitting as scum? I wouldn't expect any of you to take her justification without a grain of salt (I'd be completely sceptical myself in your positions), but I would argue that, if it is atypical of her, that might be a cause for some hesitation in condemning based on her lackluster play.

[vollkan]

Okay, I am going to try something new this game. Some of you will probably know my % ranking system (I explain it below). I will put down point increases within my read, to make my reasoning and suspicion bases perfectly clear. Experimental, but I want to see if it helps. + means somebody has increased in scumminess to me, whereas minus means they look more townie (and the number shows the relative extent of the jump)

Vollkan's Read of Game

14: Right of the bat, I find it interesting that Shez would pick Juls, a newbie, for his question. Obviously, Shez joined later than Juls, but common sense would say that a less experienced player, town or scum, would be more likely to screw up an answer to such a question as Shez asks here. See my comments on post 18 for more on this. (Shez+1)
18: He now criticises her defensiveness. For starters, defensiveness is not a scumtell - and I challenge anybody who thinks it is to explain why - but also because her response is entirely reasonable; why indeed did Shez single her out? (Shez+2)
19: Not sure I understand OP's voting logic here. @OP: What link was there between Shez showing knowledge (presumably you mean of tricky play) and him being scum?
21: Without explanation, X says he thinks Juls' answer is scummy. (X+1)
22: Shez is right in his reply to OP, knowledge of play has no link to scumminess. I don't like his casting of aspersions on Juls for her saying she is generally scummy - again, she's a newbie (and her play here reinforces that) and there is nothing inherently wrong with admitting that one often appears scummy (in fact, it's probably a good thing to make people aware of) (Shez+1)
24: ugh...I don't like this post by G-Force. There is nothing wrong with aggression and there is nothing scummy about voting early (or, if there is, you don't explain it). But saying "reluctant to commit to an early vote" sounds rhetorically powerful, despite being meaningless. (G+2)
25: Yay for X's criticism of G's poor logic (X-1)
33: Ugh...panamon uses inconsistency with an ongoing game to justify a vote on Shez. This isn't scummy (nor is the alleged inconsistency, divorced of all context) but it terrible form.
35: Babygirl is wrong on Shez - his behaviour is scummy - but right that Juls is "just gameplay" - a nulltell
36: Shez pulls an "if I were scum" *vomit* (but I will be lenient since he is a newbie...but still...ugh). His justification for choosing juls ("she seemed interested in bantering with other players") is very weak.
38: CKD makes sense on the "if I were scum" (Good to play with you again, CKD)
43: Interesting. Rhinox's first post is big but only deals with the above "if I were scum" issue which, since it is pure theory, I don't want to go into. However, he makes no comment on anything else that actually is relevant. This raises the concern that he is avoiding controversy, but I'll wait and see for more evidence before making judgment.
46: Unexplained vote by Erratus. I will wait and see if he gives some explanation.
49: Juls casts an ironic vote for X, who defended reasonless voting.

==I have study to do, so I will leave things there for the time being. These are my rankings thus far:

Rankings

(0 = confirmed town, 100 = confirmed scum, 50 = neutral OR insufficient info)
2. curiouskarmadog - 50
3. Erratus Apathos - 50
4. G-Force - 52
5. mrfixij - 50
6. orangepenguin - 50
7. bionicchop2 - 50
8. PyroDwarf - 50
9. Rhinox - 50
10. Riceballtai - 50
11. Scheherazade - 54
12. Xtoxm - 50

[vollkan]

Okay, I just had a look at RBT's linked game. I want to nip this little babygirl issue in the bud before I proceed with my reread - since it is the pre-eminent issue right now and I feel up to speed on it.

Firstly, have a look over babygirl's post history on the site Here for your convenience. I'll be brutally honest and say she is a uniformly poor player. A brief skim shows she rarely posts more than two lines at a time, and what she does post is far from being of even passable quality. That's a material fact to be borne in mind here - BG is bad all the time.

Now, let's have a look at Amish mafia (where BG was a SK). Here are all her posts. By post #3, she is apologising for not keeping up. This isn't scummy - it's sheer laziness. She posts effectively nothing all game, then gets pissed off and replaces out. Now, something else that should be of interest to all of you is the votecount at that point in time:

Mellowed Man: babygirl86, riceballtail, Celebloki, Mr. Incrediball
riceballtail: Surye
Alabaska J: Marmalade, evilgorrilaz, Mellowed Man, Battle Mage
Evilgorrilaz: Alabaska J
Battle Mage: The Fonz


Not voting: Killa Seven, nswhorse, Inquisitor JL, Rigel, DizzyIzzyB13, q21

Zounds! Not a single vote on BG. In fact, we even get this little exchange just before she replaces out:

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.

Jesus Christ. That same attitude, and you're not even under any pressure! I hate your playstyle

Now, one player than suggested, as has essentially been done here, that:

Classic "scum giving up after failing to lurk to victory".

More on the incorrectness of that later.

For now, we turn to Family Guy Mafia, where she was a Treacherous lover. Here are her posts Basically, it's the same story. She says nothing all game effectively, than complains about having difficulty keeping up. Then she says she burns her hand and cannot post for a few days....and lurks into oblivion. Also interesting is the votecount at the time:

vote count:

reborn537 2 votes: (LlamaFluff, Save the Dragons)
LlamaFluff 1 votes: (reborn537)
Inspector Godot 1 vote: (RestFermata)
thinktank 2 vote: (Inspector Godot, babygirl)
Elvis_Knits 1 vote (xtoxm)

Not voting:

Elvis_Knits
kmd4390
GhostWriter
kloud1516

With 12 people it take 7 votes for lynch
Day 1 ends August 28th, 4:00pm PST

Again, nothing on BG. She was being heavily (and justifiably) criticised for being a crap player BUT not suspected.

Moreover, have a look at her town games (you can find them through the first link I posted). She is just as dreadful as when she is scum and is still lurkish and getting replaced. In brief: BG is a crap player who habitually lurks and doesn't contribute.

Now, given the above,

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.

So, to those voting me, I suggest you all think very carefully about what I have said. It seems to me that this is basically just a witch-hunt after a terrible player, without regard for the crucial question "Does it make her scum?"

[vollkan]

(ugh...my first link doesn't work. You'll all have to go to babygirl's profile and hit the view posts thing instead)

Ha! I finally worked out why babygirl sounded familiar to me...I modded her in my theme game Ace Attorney Mafia And guess what...she lurked horrendously and I had to replace her. AND SHE WAS TOWN

Her play corroborates game I played with her as scum (Family Guy) and contradicts her play as town in a game I played with her (PYP3).

You neglect to mention that she made a grand total of 12 posts in PYP3. None of them was over 3 lines long and her play was still poor standard.

Moreover, the picture who paint here is incredibly narrow. As I have said, and you haven't rebutted, her play across all her games is almost uniformly of a poor standard as town and scum.

Volkan, what is your claim?

I'm happy to claim, but I refuse to do so until people have a look at what I have said. 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. Since I think my argument is strong, and you have certainly not dented it one iota, I don't think a claim is warranted from me at this stage.

[vollkan]

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

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.

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.

vollkan are you refusing to claim?

See above.

Xtox is exactly right in his interpretation. I'm not saying "I'm not going to claim". I am saying "I think you are all being stupid about BG and maybe you should take another look before we go down the road of claiming"

*and I am posting as I read through the recent posts, so I may claim in this post depending on how people respond*

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.

That said, I still want voll to claim. If we're happy with the claim, I'd like some additional suspicion turned towards pyro. If we're not, we lynch BG/voll.

Uh? Being satisfied with a claim is one thing...but we shouldn't even be having a claim unless and until the case against me is actually established. Thus far, I have seen no tenable defence of it.

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.

I'm adamant that it doesn't help town for me to claim, simply because of where the wagon was at, if the case against me is ultimately doomed to fail (which I think it very clearly has). The circumstances here are very different from where a player at L-1 simply refuses to claim on principle because it is extremely rare for something like this to happen - an entire case to be shown as pathetically weak. I mean, the point of claiming at L-1 is not that "L-1 is just one vote short of a lynch". The point of claiming at L-1 is that an lynch appears imminent. If a case is shown to be fundamentally flawed, then a lynch is no longer imminent.

[vollkan]

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.

Yeah, but it strikes me as very misleading to paint it as though she only leaves games when she is scum under heat. You were totally wrong about the "heat" bit, and I've shown that she doesn't just leave games as scum

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.

You're ignoring my point - where she quits, the common element is that she is under pressure for lurking. Your whole argument depends on saying that "the reason she is quitting is because she is scum who is worried" when that's basically just a cherry-picked interpretation, based only on two games, which ignores the fact that she abandons regularly and just happens to tend to quit when people call her out for lurking (which, by coincidence, occurred in two games where she was scum).

In short: You have not at all shown that there is a causal link between her quitting and her being scum. You've shown that the two occurred in the same games but, as I have made clear, your argument depends on making one assumption when there are other explanations (ie. she doesn't like being pressured for lurking) which are more consistent with her general style of play (that she likes being mafia and hates having to post content).

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

No. The onus is always on the person who votes to justify their vote. If you cannot defend having a vote upon somebody (ie. if you lack a vote-worthy case) then the only reasonable thing to do is unvote.

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?

This is really twisting what I said. I am not "surveying others". I'm saying that "I am not going to claim unless there are good reasons to do so" (ie. imminent danger of lynch). The ONLY way that danger can be judged is based on the opinion of other people. I have my own view of the case against me, but it would be wrong of me to refuse claiming until the very end just because I held that view.

I can tell you I likely won't unvote if there is no claim.

Your vote has no basis behind it other than, effectively, an assumption of scumminess. Any reasonable person would unvote, and CKD and Xtoxm already have. You are basically just being obstinate here.

We have a deadline in 3 days (+x) and there is no other wagon equally appealing.

I am more sympathetic to this; I appreciate that having an impending deadline forces awkward choices. But, since the case against me is dismally weak, surely there has been some other person who has committed scummy actions? (I am asking genuinely - I haven't read the game yet)

[vollkan]

Cross-posted.

No deadline? Great. That helps us avoid being forced into difficult choices.

[vollkan]

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.

[vollkan]

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?

What game are you talking about?

I've already shown that she wasn't under suspicion in either of the two games. She was under pressure to post, however, and her snapping fits perfectly with the fact she is generally a crap player. Here, we have the same thing, she gets pressured to post and then snaps because she doesn't want to.

[vollkan]

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

I forgot the vote by Dizzy (I was wrong to say she didn't have a single vote), but I wrote what I did before in knowledge of his post. Dizzy's post is just my point - the pressure on BG was not "suspicion" in the usual sense of the term. As you identify, she did get called out - but that's just it: as I keep saying and you don't seem to be understanding, the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said). That she is a lazy player. As Mellowman said, and I quoted before, she wasn't under pressure - by any standard there were no arguments against her. It was just that people wanted her to post.

I'm not really liking how you took Mellowed Man's post out of context to prove that there was no pressure on her.

It doesn't seem to just be Dizzy that is misunderstanding me...

It is clear that BG was under attack for her failure to post. As Mellowed rightly says, she was under no "pressure" (I use inverted commas to indicate I am quoting Mellow). There was certainly pressure on her to post and pressure on her for her failure to post (this has been central to my argument from the beginning). But that's just it - it was pressure attacking something she had said - it was pressure directed at her lack of saying anything. It was the same thing as in Family Guy - she blew up when she gets forced to post.

[vollkan]

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.

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.

I mean, the argument being made is that she did this because she is scum who cannot handle pressure. What I am saying is that if you look at her level of laziness globally (and it's pretty significant) you see that this is more just that she doesn't like being pressured to

post

. Of course she was under attack for lack of justification, rightly so.

But what you are doing is drawing an inference, from that, that she quit because of the attack. I am saying that you are essentially ignoring who she is and just focussing on what happened in this one game without regard for the fact that her play seems more dictated by avoiding having to post (in all of her games! which is bizarre - why the heck would you play if you basically just try to avoid posting the entire time)

[vollkan]

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.

I missed the p 10 votes, when I went to the thread eventually (because I did so by viewing babygirl's posts in isolation and looking at the posts closest to her lurking).

Given that she was scum in that game, it's plausible to infer that her lurking was, as you say, directed towards avoiding having to explain herself. Firstly, however, she is a general lurker so this cannot in any way form the basis for a meta position. Secondly, I reiterate the point I keep making that she was specifically under pressure to explain herself. That is to say, she was being suspected specifically because she was not posting (it wasn't as though they actually were attacking anything she had said - like you would in a normal debate). Given who she is, it is unsurprising in the extreme that she would abandon - she could quite easily have cobbled together a bullshit justification for the vote. But that would have requried effort.

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.

I'm not too sure what the point you are making here is. Her lurking is pretty much a constant in her play - no matter what alignment.

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.

And add in all the other games where she lurked and was lazy and it becomes only slightly incriminating.

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.

I kind of answer this above, but I'll address it directly since it frustrates you.

The attacks related to something she had done but had not explained, right?

In order to respond to them, she would have had to have made a detailed, researched post. In the global review I have made on her, I haven't seen one post by her that comes close to that.

It's very different to her committing a scumtell that people can simply accept as scummy because her they were specifically seeking an explanation from her.

My basis point here is that, consistent with her global meta, it would be totally atypical of her to actually respond to the attacks.

Your entire argument zeroes in on the parallels without ignoring the global meta, and that's absolutely fatal to it. I freely admit that if she characteristically posted frequently and with meaningful content, then I'd have a hard time disputing your argument - given the obvious parallels. But that simply isn't the case. She is universally a player who avoids posting.

It's almost a truism to say that the only time she would be under intense pressure to post is when she was under serious suspicion. It, therefore, follows that she is most likely to avoid posting when under suspicion - not because of alignment-based surrender but because it makes her general lurking behaviour completely untenable.

[vollkan]

First, in the absence of a meta read of babygirl86, I found her actions in this thread highly suspect.

a) She made only a single post that demonstrated pro-town reasoning (individual post 8), made against a player who has now claimed mason.
b) The second half of her time spent here puts forward an excuse for future low posting habits, moving, up until the second excuse, one for past low posting habits, her mother's health, but completely fails to account for spotty posting behaviour following this second excuse.
c) Over-reaction to a simple question made by me, including an appeal to emotion. I'm not sure what to make of the actual circumstances. I can say that either something happened and she unjustly expected us to know and act on that information or nothing happened and she used a past excuse to defend present behaviour.

I'll say at this point, that the above is all correct and I see nothing to dispute here. I have no intention of defending her actual behaviour in this game on the basis of it not being atrocious. My defence, like the case itself, is meta-based.

Second, in reading her meta, I believe that...

As town, she's most likely to:

a) behave apologetically for her lurking consistently.
b) "fade away," i.e. stop posting and fail to respond to prods.

As scum, she's most likely to:

a) ask for replacement.
b) provide an excuse for her departure.

That's simply not true. To be honest, I think this is partly because, when an entire case is based on meta, it becomes necessary to get a clear picture of a player. I've tried going over every single one of her posts in the games you identify. Because your latest post is the most comprehensive yet, but it still completely misrepresents BG. I'm not suggesting you're at fault here, btw; this is one of the inherent problems with meta-based cases - that they are pitched at such generality that they risk obscuring the finer details.

The main point of what follows below is the point I keep coming back to - it's fine to point at specific instances of play with her, but when you are making a meta case it is CRUCIAL that you consider things more broadly and take in as wide a scope of substance as possible.

Newbie 619

* Says she will post twice
* Then makes an apologetic last post (quoted in Shez's post)

Open 65

* Says she will post once
* Apoligises in penultimate post

Friends and enemies

* In her second post in game she makes an apology and the following excuse: "between both working and going to school full time I haven't had time to do a full readthrough yet"
* In her third post, after "rereading", she says "my head literally hurt". There are basically two possible meanings here: either a headache excuse, or she is just basically saying "I'm so confused, don't expect me to post substantively" Either way, she is making excuses

Newbie 601

* She makes no apologies, or excuses or anything. In fact, her last post here is the best post I have seen yet by her

Ace Attorney Mafia

* No apologies, or excuses
* She blows up at the end

You are what you eat

* Makes an apology in second post and uses the excuse of being busy
* Fourth post - apologises again, and uses the same excuse again
* Her final post, quoted in Shez's above, she uses the excuse of the anniversary of her grandfather's death (which sounds more than a little contrived, if you ask me)
* Also, I quote shafted the mod:
[quote="Shaft.ed]
babygirl86 has requested a replacement. Mod is getting on it.
[/quote]

Family guy

* She is actually unusually non-horrible for quite a few posts (no lurking apologetics or anything)
* No excuses either, until her fifthteenth post where she uses the "busy" excuse from before
* Then we have the internet excuse
* Then the burnt hand (which, unless I misunderstand, she said to the mod when she had no reason to be lying or anything)
* Her comments at the end suggest she didn't actually want to leave the game, coupled with the above lends some credence to her excuse (though, my point doesn't depend on the excuse being true)

Amish

* Uses excuse of having to leave town in fourth post
* Then uses vacation excuse
* THen posts and says the internet connection on her "vacation" is bad
* Then she makes a post announcing her return (I see no reason for her to do this when she did unless she was telling the truth)
* Eleventh post, apologises for her neglect of the game and uses excuse of semester beginning (which would be consistent with the vacation excuse)
* Last post, blows up when under pressure to post and requests replacement

My Observations

* She makes excuses as town and scum. In 2 town games she makes excuses, and she makes excuses in her 2 scum games. I'd note also that we really have no reason to doubt those excuses.
* She apologises as town and scum. In 4 town games and 1 scum game
* She blows up as town and scum. In 1 town game, and 1 scum game
* She requests replacement as town and as scum. In 1 town game and 2 scum games.

My Conclusions

Fine. Some things she does more as town than as others. Given the small sample space, it would be ridiculous to expect strict proportionality between the two. But what we do see, coming back to my overall theme, is the fact that the way she has behaved in her scum games is entirely consistent with the general patterns of her behaviour. I'd be incredibly surprised if anybody could seriously contend that this is evidence for scumminess at all, yet alone to the degree of certainty that warrants going down the road of claiming and lynching.

As it is, I am still leaning towards a vollkan lynch, if only for BG's meta.

It's not her meta. It's a deceptive account of her meta that excludes the bulk of play.

As it is Vollkan, I would much rather have your thoughts on who is and is not scummy, as opposed to trying to justify BG's meta. I know you gave that in your initial synopsis, but since then you're cutting away at strawment in the attack against BG, and failing to provide any significant help in scumhunting. My vote stands. If Vollkan continues to strawman and cease to provide an alternative, I suggest a claim and/or a lynch

I know. I will definitely get back onto the read. The thing is, the BG case was consuming your own discussion, and I was able to become involved in that debate because it didn't depend on me having knowledge of everything in this game. I don't like the fact that you say I am not being a significant help. I have been doing my best to show why the meta case against BG is a load of rot. That doesn't help find scum directly, but it prevents one grossly erroneous lynch.

[vollkan]

As it is Vollkan, I would much rather have your thoughts on who is and is not scummy, as opposed to trying to justify BG's meta. I know you gave that in your initial synopsis, but since then you're cutting away at strawment in the attack against BG, and failing to provide any significant help in scumhunting. My vote stands. If Vollkan continues to strawman and cease to provide an alternative, I suggest a claim and/or a lynch.

I completely disagree with you. It is not Volkan's place to simply provide an alternative just to find a way to shift the pressure off of himself. In fact, I would interpret doing so as avoiding the issue and deflecting.

It's not Vollkan's place to provide an alternative. It is his place to contribute if he is town. I don't consider it a good strategy when under pressure to simply defend yourself. In fact, I've seen vollkan debate, he retorts effectively, placing suspicion elsewhere while simultanously defending himself seamlessly. Whereas here, he is not contributing to town, he's contributing to not getting himself lynched.

Ixfij, I've replaced into almost as many games as I have joined on this site. At this point in time, I cannot strike out at others very meaningfully (though, the results of my defence should be read as a serious criticism of those that led the case against me and those who uncritically accepted). I daresay that, after I do a reread, faults in the case that I have uncovered , put in context, will be valuable for scumhunting. Doing a full reread is absolutely important, of course, and I am in the process of doing one.

However, I don't agree that a defence is without value altogether. At the point in time when I entered, the impression I got was that BG's meta was the burning issue. As I've said already, I could also see that I wasn't going to need any real knowledge of this game to defuse that attack.

Did I say he was scum for not making mistakes? I have pointed out cases where I think facts were intentionally skewed

That's absolute garbage.

I haven't skewed facts. The basic point of my defence has remained entirely the same throughout: there is no distinct town and scum meta for BG that is sufficient to justify suspicion yet alone a lynch.

I've already admitted I wasn't aware of the p 10 votes for BG, but that suspicion is not relevant at all to the question of BG's meta as a whole. I could also have probably worded my point about "suspicion" and "pressure" a bit better, so that it didn't require so much clarification, but I haven't skewed anything.

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.

Anybody who has played a game with me before knows how much I

love

it when people talk about how they just "feel" or their "gut tells them" somebody is scum.

I've obliterated your case against her. And now, with nothing left to stand on, you cling to a mere belief. If you have some other argument that warrants strong suspicion of BG, let's hear it!

[vollkan]

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.

I still think vollkan is scum. He is definitely a better player than babygirl, but I think the meta suggest that she is scum, on top of the reasons I voted for her. vollkan is putting up a good fight, and his responses are pretty good, except I don't trust him or agree with his arguments. So my vote stands.

My defence wasn't scattered and weak. I made the same point from the beginning and stuck with it. The fact that you were able to point out that some observations of mine about other games were not completely accurate didn't at all undermine my defence itself.

Now, there's an interesting parallel in your and Orange's posts. Neither of you has made any attempt to counter my rebuttal of your case against me. It's pretty damn evident that neither of you has a leg to stand on and so you are both bitterly clinging with recalcitrance to nothing more than a gut-based sense of mistrust.

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. Don't insult my intelligence by implying that my objection is simply to the word 'feel'. As I have explained in many other games, legitimising emotional, reasonless play is a recipe for disaster for the town. At this stage of things, I find myself drawing parallels with the game Mafia 72. If you want to understand why I have such a visceral dislike of cases that aren't based on reason, have a look at this game. Basically, I was subjected to a Stalinesque showtrial by Albert B Rampage (who was town in the end, amazingly). Basically, he looked at recent events, made up a scenario in his head in which I was scum that seemed plausible. I pointed out again and again that he had absolutely no case, but the fool just ran this emotional rhetoric against me.

Given ABR's play, I know that the mere fact you and orange are pushing your BS gut-case against me doesn't make you scum. However, what you are doing is horrifically anti-town. I can't force you unvote. I can't force you to give reasons. But what I can do is show your BS for what it is.

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

If you cannot do that/refuse to do that, then I have a backup challenge:

Explain to me why you are justified in playing by little more than your own gut

If I haven't given either of you a reasonable doubt by now, I never will. But what I can do is force you to manifest your inadequacies to everybody else as a means of denying your positions any legitimacy in their eyes.

And naturally I hit submit before i finish my thought. I'm not sure about Vollkan, I'm not yet comfortable with a lynch on pyro or schehera, but I do want information out of them,

as they're on my backup chopping blocks.

So you're already setting up future lynches? ...

Oh dear.

Oh for crying out loud. Just because somebody expresses suspicion of more than one person doesn't mean they are "setting up future lynches". Surprise surprise; more emotionally-charged innuendo from orangepenguin.

[vollkan]

Cross-posted.

babygirl86's behaviour is enough to keep you at the top of my suspect list, if not enough to want you lynched without further ado

Well, I assume I will get to BG's player in my read. I am expecting it to be atrocious. But, for now, I'd just ask to you to reflect on whether it is manifestly more scummy than her behaviour universally.

Mostly it was a simple oversight. I wasn't as thorough reading the mods' posts as I tried to be in reading babygirl86's.

Fair enough. As I've said, I missed the p 10 votes for BG. Short of reading every game from beginning to end (which would be totally unreasonable), we can't be expected to have complete accuracy in everything we say on meta.

[vollkan]

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.

Justifying yourself with the poker analogy isn't going to work.

What we reason to be scummy is a product of reason (what would scum be most likely to do?) and experience (what do scum typically do?). For some people, they may be able to make those judgments by "gut" (know something is scummy just when they see it). BUT they still have reasons and, if asked, they ought to be able to explain them. If a person cannot explain their suspicion, then it is essentially just emotional or subconcious and, since they have no way of distinguishing, basic pricniples of precuation say that they shouldn't proceed in their suspicion.

We don't have fingerprints, but we also have more than just a person's poker faces. We have words and arguments.


As of now, I see that Shez has made a very substantial case. I cannot hope to respond to something that detailed with the reading I have done thus far, so I will from hereon post on my reading instead of current events (since the meta case appears to have floated off into the ether....)

[vollkan]

Vollkan's Read of Game

76: Weird post by Juls. She makes a whole heap of unsubstantiated expressions of opinion. Given her inexperience, I'll let it slide
79: Bad post by Xtoxm. Juls asks him why his top 3 are Juls, OP and BG and his only response is "Because out of everyone those are the 3 that i'm most suspicious of so far." Circular answer (+1)
82: Juls justifies stating that OP tends to agree with people by reference to only 2 posts. Needless to say, the few posts he had made aren't statistically significant enough to warrant that sort of comment. (+1)
83: Pyro fishes to find out whether his professed suspicion of Erratus had wider support. ("Are other people suspicuis of Erratus, because I am, so i will keep my vote there for the moment.") (+1)
89: Another meaningless post by Juls. What is intersting, though, is the way that, within the space of a few posts, she has been able to rank her suspects (to the point of saying that she thinks one of CKD, Erratus, and Xtoxm is scum). But the order she gives isn't one that is at all implicit in her original post. Vaguery from a newbie is forgivable, but this sort of shifting is not (+1)
90: Good post by GF on Juls.
93: Bit rich. Juls, who has provided little reasons, asks for reasoning and so on from CKD.
96: Shez's reasons for specifically questioning Juls are rather weak, but plausible
103: Whilst I agree with Rhinox's conclusion that people shouldn't be making lists (*cough* Juls *cough) so early in the game, I don't agree with his second point - that such lists are suspicious because they help scum (heck, I am making such a list right now). I've seen this view expressed by townies before, though, so I don't think Rhinox is scummy for this - just wrong.
104: Xtoxm makes a BAD vote here - just saying that Rhinox's point about it being too early is "bullshit". No explanation as to why it is bullshit, and no explanation as to why, even if it were bullshit, that would make him scum. I don't agree with Rhinox that reads are impossible D1 (I do, as I said, agree that early D1 is often too early to be making lists and rankings and so on), but I see where he is coming from (+2)
113: Hmm...Rhinox tries to clarify himself by distinguishing a "read" from a "tell", the latter only arising once people have died and more comes to light. I don't think this is at all an accurate characterisation of things - deaths are ordinarily fairly unhelpful for information purposes. That said, I think he makes an excellent point about the tenuous nature of D1 suspicions.
115: Blunt and simplistic response by Xtoxm. Doesn't at all engage with Rhinox's rebuttal. (+1)
116: Applauds CKD for seeing through Xtoxm's nonsense - he makes the exact point I made just above: that not only is Rhinox right, but that even if he was wrong it is a theory point, not an alignment one. (-1)
117: *headdesk* Xtox only responds with "CKD is also scummy." (+2)
119: BG posts and apologises, using the excuse that her internet is going down.
120: I don't like Erratus's statement to pyro that "So you've been focusing on me all game, but you're not going to attack me? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense." There is no need for a player to follow questions with attacks - people can inquire genuinely. (+2)
122: Good retort to Xtoxm by Rhinox. (No reduction in score, since CKD had made the same sort of point earlier)
123: Juls turns her Xtoxm vote into a serious one because he is " throwing haphazard accusations left and right to see which one sticks" and not giving reasons for suspicion. I could say the same thing about you Juls. (+1)
124: With no substantiation, RBT says she believes xtoxm is town. And, similarly lacking in justification, she says Rhinox's posts appear "scum motivated". (+2)
130: GF makes the point I made in my comments on 113 - the weakness in Rhinox's distinction. but he also sees through Xtoxm's and RBT's weird attacks. (-1)
132: Xtoxm's distinction between a "read" (which appears to be like my idea of "gut") and a "tell" (Which is empirical evidence) cannot really sustain his distinction between D1 and D2 - deaths don't produce empirical evidence.
133: Very good post by Pyrodwarf, zeroing in on Xtoxm's vagenuess. (-1)
143: RBT makes the horridly evasive move of not answering a question and instead saying "Quit attacking me when you could just read the thread and see it yourself." If somebody asks you a question, it means they don't know the answer (duh!) Telling them to read the thread is just dodging the question and is plain lazy. (+2)
144: I'm sympathetic to Pyro's attack on RBT's obscenely short posts, but he recognises that it is her "style" and, thus, is a meta thing which is not scummy (albeit it anti-town). (+1)
150: X cast a vote for OP and only justifies it with "I don't like how he's been acting, or how he voted me." This is just getting ridiculous. (+3)
157: X answers a question very clearly addressed for RBT. Not scummy, but notable.
158: BG promises content
161: RBT swipes at CKD for asking a question with "Did you just not read the thread or something?" and doesn't answer CKD's real question (CKD asked why there was a Shez wagon, and she only responds by pointing out when the wagon began) (+2)
165: Now Juls answers it for RBT as well
171: WTF?! CKD explictly addresses a question to "Rice(and just Rice)". Xtoxm then answers the question by saying that he was trying to derail the Shez wagon - but what is really striking is that his sole reason is "cos I think Shez is town". (+2)

Rankings

(0 = confirmed town, 100 = confirmed scum, 50 = neutral OR insufficient info)
2. curiouskarmadog - 49
3. Erratus Apathos - 52
4. G-Force - 51
5. mrfixij (rep. Juls) - 53
6. orangepenguin - 50
7. bionicchop2 - 50
8. PyroDwarf - 51
9. Rhinox - 50
10. Riceballtai - 56
11. Scheherazade - 54
12. Xtoxm - 61

[vollkan]

Given the portfolio of games which BG has played and been replaced out of, I find it hard to call her inexperienced. She's more experienced than you or I, at least on this site. She may be a universally poor player, but she is not inexperienced. Letting Vollkan start with a clean slate is a fallacy. Yes, it is a bad thing for him that he can't explain what was going through BG's head, if anything.

But we have to realize that Vollkan is a better player than BG on both sides of the spectrum. If he is, in fact, scum, then he's going to slide his way out of it better than most will. That is why I would like a claim or a lynch, because from every way I see it, BG was scummy. Vollkan carries the same scumminess over from the sheer fact of BG's play, and he cannot justify it because he cannot know why she played the way she did. It's an immense handicap for Voll, but the fact still remains that if you thought BG was scum, you CANNOT let Vollkan's excellent play stand in the way of your first read. If Vollkan is town, then BG's scummy play is null. If BG's scummy play is legitimately scum, then Vollkan's attempts to defend himself are null. End of story.

You are correct that it is absurd to let a replacer begin with a "clean slate". I should be judged based on BG's play, which should also be judged in light of her meta (and I will have critical analysis of Shez's case once I have properly done my detailed read of everything; I am posting this giving Shez the benefit of the doubt that his case is not as ephemeral as that meta case which seems to have suddenly dropped off the radar). And, on that note, I take issue with you distinguishing "inexperienced" from being "universally poor". The relevance of experience is that it can reflect the expected capability of a player. However, if a player is universally poor, their experience becomes irrelevant. Experience is only ever relevant

because of

its typical correlation to ability.

That said, and maybe this is just the interpretation I am taking, but I do think that you are also pulling on the emotion of fear a bit when you mention my ability as a player. We've seen it expressed already that there is a legitimate concern of me being "the one that got away", so to speak - but that is simply an emotional response, which is only fuelled by casting further aspersions against me based on who I am.

Also, whilst nothing I say can erase anything that BG did but, by that same logic, nothing I do can simply be ignored outright. It's simply not true that "if you thought BG was scum, you CANNOT let Vollkan's excellent play stand in the way of your first read". There is no basis for saying that BG's antecedent play be given paramount force.

[vollkan]

I think maybe we should just go for it.

Vote Volkan

What possible protown reason could you have for wanting to rush the lynch of somebody who hasn't even had an opportunity to challenge the case against them?

The fear of coming so close and letting him get away if he turns out to be scum is a factor, yes.

This is a completely illegitimate reason for justifying any stance against anybody.

I want to state that I'm completely for a vollkan wagon still, hence why my vote is still there. I'd also like him to complete his read of the game, since that's the only real method of scumhunting he's done so far.

Tell me, RBT, what other method of scumhunting would you have expected from somebody who replaces into a game?

Reread continued

181: Xtoxm, how on earth is it helpful for you to ask whether CKD expects RBT to post. He may have a meta for uselessness, but that doesn't mean he shoudn't push RBT.
187: RBT, explain how this style of posting is justified. You are refusing to respond to CKD. (+2)
192: Good posting by CKD. He follows Rice up on her ridiculous intransigence.
193: This sort of posting by X is indefensible. He seems to be just trying to obfuscate every question CKD poses to RBT. It makes no sense from a protown perspective to do something like this. (+1)
199: After Shez makes a good post explaining why RBT should be forced to explain himself, X seems to think that "chainsawing" is a sufficient explanation. It isn't. I, for one, do not like the way the word "chainsawing" is being used in this game. I've never heard of it before, and I find that catchphrase scumtells ("chainsawing", "OMGUS", "WIFOM", etc.) are genuinely unhelpful, since they allow people to get away with not posting their reasoning in full and are open to abuse at the margins.
202: Shez quotes the definition of chainsawing given by RBT ("Player A calls Player B scummy. Player C attacks Player A, attempting to draw fire off of player B."). If this is the definition of chainsawing, it is a complete load of crap. Unless you know Player C's motivations, which no townie possibly could, then it is just as reasonable to suppose that C has a genuine grievance against A. Let me state this bluntly: "Chainsawing" is not scummy unless you can prove that the most reasonable hypothesis is that the purpose of C's attack was to draw fire off B. Needless to say, that's damn near impossible.
203: Good questions by Juls.
204: X retorts by accusing her of "chainsawing". No explanation, no justification, no nothing. (+2).
206: RBT's explanation of why she thought there was chainsawing belies the problem above. Nothing she points out here is remotely scummy, but applying the label "chainsawing" makes it sound scummy (and bloody, with lots of noise). (+1)
210: GF has my thoughts exactly on RBT and X. (-1)
211: Ditto for CKD on X. (-1)
212: Mason claim. Ugh....And on my two highest suspects...
215: Wha...RBT's post here is bizarre. ("No, it's all just a well organized lie that we did during our N0 communication. We also decided that I should bus Sche, while he defends, so that we can completely get one of us to be a "definitely town", even while the other one is scummy.") If this is sarcastic, it's completely inappropriate. If not, then it makes no sense for mason but plenty of sense for scum.
216: BG posts saying she has reliable net.
217: BG says, after a mere 30 minutes, that she has finished reading the thread. (Ha! Good luck on that!) She picks up some unexplained suspicion on X and votes him for it, and gives a vague answer to one of Rhinox's questions. The obvious conclusion to draw here is that she has barely read at all, yet alone noticed the claim.
218: X votes BG promptly. On one hand, it would be understandable to vote somebody who votes a claimed mason. On the other, due diligence would suggest that BG's post be taken with a grain of salt.
223: BG unvotes. Most reasonable explanation: She's seen the posts in response to her's and has realised she missed the claim.
227: X says RBT's post was sarcasm.
229: Rhinox on BG is reasonable, but I think you miss something. BG's posts on this point began with her criticising the "I love waggon" as justification for L-2. Her fear of scum adding the last two votes is, of course, not wholly realistic, but I think you need to view the two posts she makes as connected. There is a prospect of the wagon being built, albeit it not rapidly, to a lynch and, if one vote is atrocious (which the "I love waggon" was) that's a legitimiate cause for concern. I wouldn't have responded in the way BG did, but I don't think what she says is unreasonable.
231: Xtoxm says cop shouldn't be investigating the masons. This I do not like. Think about it: Xtoxm has said they were confirmed town to each other. Thus, they are either both town, or both scum. That means that a cop investigation would be able to clear or criminalise both of them. That's by no means a bad investigation (I am not saying a cop should necessarily investigate them; I am simply saying that there are good reasons for such an investigation)
233: BG gives a meta explanation for her L-2 stance.
236: X advocates that Panamon should just be lynched for lurking. Don't like this (since it comes from the king of low-content posts)
237: GF's vote is reasonable - I don't swing strongly either way on it.
243: @Bio - how is the risk v reward against scum Xtoxm and RBT?
245: OP doesn't really address the crux of GF's argument, which was that OP's posts were actually content-light. (+1)
246: Erratus is right that GF flipflopped without justification for doing so (+2 GF, unless and until this is explained).
250: Bio's "case" on pyro is entirely gut.
253: I don't understand what CKD sees in issue in Bio's content argument.
256: CKD, bio explained this point fairly adeqautely. In his view, scum are less likely to post content than town because it's harder for scum to construct good posts (This isn't true, btw). However, you are wrong to argue that "content" is a speculative category. Aspects of it might be contested (eg. I'd argue that a declaration of gut suspicion is not content), but posting fluff is scummier than posting good solid arguments.
258: Good retort by CKD to X
266: Atrocious defence by OP - "But I'm not the only one who "hasn't scum hunted." Yeah, but unfortunately, votes can only go for one person. You can question why you were specifically chosen, but don't act indignantly when you are chosen.
272: Vig claim..ugh
292: I think Pyro makes a legitimate point about the speed of OP's claim. However, I really don't like Pyro's indirect shot at the wagon. He asks "Does any one else think that scum may have been his wagon?" Of course it is possible that scum may have been on vig-OP's wagon - there is simply no point in asking this question other than to fuel speculation. That's fine, but Pyro isn't doing the legwork himself of providing any basis for suspecting scum being on the wagon. This is basically just innuendo. (+2)
293: I do not like OP's rationalisation for his early claim. "4 can grow to 7 very quickly". Very true, but totally unrealistic. Scum would be mad to quick hammer on D1, which means that there is no imminent danger at 4. The most protown thing to do would be to wait until lynch is imminent and seemingly unavoidable, in order to have the maximum prospect of scum being implicated in one's demise. Moreover, this: "We now have a 1/4 shot at finding scum, instead of a 1/6 had I not claimed." is absolute rubbish. Reductio ad absurdum - we should all claim because then we have better odds of lynching scum. The costs of his early claim (ie. it guillotining the wagon and potnetially prematurely and unecessarily exposing the vig) completely outweigh any improvement in odds.
299: BG makes the mother in hospital excuse. She votes OP, based on something Rhinox said, unclear what do. Needless to say, she isn't paying attention
302: Again, OP is wrong about quicklynch. His vote for BG is understandable, but I think people need to realise she clearly is paying no attention
306: GF makes a very good point about Juls' dreadful justification for not unvoting. (+2 Juls)
310: RBT votes BG based on similarities with BG scum games.
313: Juls joins in on the BG wagon.
<I arrive>
321: Rhinox is completely correct about OP not being "cleared". A vig claim will always place people under suspicion of being SK - that's unavoidable.
327: Ixfij joins the BG wagon, in light of the supposed meta case.
328: As does Bio.
331: As does Erratus
332: Bad post by X. It's inherently better that a replacement get to defend BG than that you just lynch her. (+1 - note that my rankings are independent of claims. Clearly, X is not the most likely lynchee, given his claim, but it would be wrong of me to treat him as untouchable just because of the claim)
340: X acknowledges that my counter-meta is "quite convincing", and asks RBT for advice.
343: Bio misrepresents my attitude to claiming. Perhaps not unreasonably, since I was unclear - but that just underscores that he shouldn't have assumed my reasons. Put simply, my position is that claiming should only be forced after a person has been given an opportunity to respond to the case against them and only if, objectively speaking, a claim would be the only way to potentially stave off an imminent lynch. D1 claims are very anti-town and, thus, should only be a last resort. As I said earlier, I didn't think people had given me a fair hearing, so I wasn't going to claim at that point.
346: Ixfij insists on a claim, despite acknowledging the universal poor quality of BG's play - which gutted the case against her. He also makes the interesting argument that "My vote was in place before I replaced in, and I'd rather see a claim before I remove it" - not sure how that is at all relevant. (+1)
358: Pyro's summaries. On me, he says: "she plays bad as scum, she plays bad a town. Lets hear Vol claim and then see whats what." I take huge issue with this, since he basically freely admits that the meta case is bollocks, but nonetheless advocates a claim. (+2). On CKD, "first few posts are thin, rides X and RBT, gets into theory debate " He seems to be implying that CKD is scummy, but he ignores so much of what CKD has said here that this is basically just a very selective cherry-picking (+1). On Juls, @PYRO: Explain how Juls post seemed "forced". Little of substance here - it's mostly either just observation (Player X does Y) or unexplained opinion ("leaning town"). Fluff, essentially (+2)
365: First time X raises the emotional argument that "I don't think I could live with it of we let him off as scum". This is essentially fear-mongering and unhelpful. Any of us could be scum, so to say you specifically fear letting me off is simply poor logic, that sounds emotionally appealing. (+1)
366: bio says "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." Firstly, I have no responsibility to dig up meta in my defence - the responsibility is on other people to present a complete picture of BG's meta. Secondly, he miscasts the question as whether or not BG has thrown a hissy as town, when the question is more whether her play fits with her meta play (which I subsequently proved that it did). (+2) My rebuttal to this post can be found here in 369 and I add a further (+2) for the rest of the points I make.
369: I say she was never under suspicion. As I indicated, I missed the p 10 votes and this is my fault.
375: Mischaraterises my intitial point - which was that she doesn't like being pressured to post. I never said she cracked under suspicion. What I said was that she avoids posting and cracks if pressure is placed upon her to post. Suspicion fulfills that if the suspicion is requiring her to post, but it need not be suspicion. I am not convinced this is scummy, though, since it was ambiguous to a degree.
385: Ixfij takes two Pyro posts out of context. As Bio explains subsequently, Pyro's first post was rsponding to the atrocious sarcastic post by RBT. (+1)
392: bio shows I was wrong about BG being under no suspicion (of course, this wasn't a point that my argument depended on).
393: Bio ignores the point I am making that the suspicion pressure was direct towards making BG post. As I said: "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." She was suspected (not to a degree I had thought, albeit), but the whole point was that the suspicion was compelling her to posting, something she would never do. (+1)
394: Good post by Rhinox accepting that I had raised a reasonable doubt. (-1)
395: Now Bio accuses me of being misleading - the only thing which changed was that I missed her being under a large degree of suspicion.
396: I don't hold this against you, Bio, but you are wrong in your risk v reward argument here. Both X and RBT were looking very scummy. The lynch of one of them seemed very likely. It would be reasonable for scum in their position to claim masons - they are unlikely to die if they do. One point which cuts against this is their declaration that they are confirmed innocents to each other, but scum masons are rare anyway...
402: With no explanation, RBT says he stands by his vote. (+1)
405: EA: "I don't buy the explanation that BG quits at the first sign of lurker-pressure. She's obviously experienced it several times here - if she didn't like it, she wouldn't come back for more." This is dodgy because we know that she does do this - simply saying that she wouldn't come back for more ignores that her lurkish play is a constant thing. Normal players wouldn't do it, but she does. (+1)
407: Shez's enormous meta case against me. I refute this completely in 409.
411: Bio: "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." This is similar to X's emotional argument - the fear that I will be the "one that got away". It's simply absurd to say that the threshold can be whether we are "unsure". Whether it is D1 or D4, the threshold for a lynch is always "who has the best chance of being scum". If you cannot honestly say this about me, then I shouldn't be lynched. (+2)
412: Rhinox makes the same point as I just made on Bio's (and therfore X's) craplogic. (-1) Also makes a very good overview of the meta-casers.
416: Bio: "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." Nobody is going to "forget" them without warrant. If I am able to refute the arguments, then they should be "forgotten".
420: EA unvotes
421: OP says, without refuting my argument, that the meta case shows BG is scum "on top of the reasons I voted for her". He then proceeds to say "vollkan is putting up a good fight, and his responses are pretty good, except I don't trust him or agree with his arguments." which is basically a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you don't. Not "trusting" me is vague emotional nonsense and if you don't "agree", the onus lies on you to rebut. (+3)
436: Shez's case on BG. Here I adjourn my read and focus on the case, which I shall address in my next post.

Rankings

(0 = confirmed town, 100 = confirmed scum, 50 = neutral OR insufficient info)
2. curiouskarmadog - 48
3. Erratus Apathos - 53
4. G-Force - 52
5. mrfixij (rep. Juls) - 57
6. orangepenguin - 54
7. bionicchop2 - 57
8. PyroDwarf - 56
9. Rhinox - 48
10. Riceballtai - 60
11. Scheherazade - 54
12. Xtoxm - 66

[vollkan]

X, you are completely twisting my words. I didn't positively say or imply that a cop SHOULD investigate you. I simply disputed your argument that a cop should NOT do so. My position is simply this: it would not be inherently unreasonable for a cop to investigate the masons, contrary to your blunt and unsubstantiated assertion that "Cop shouldn't be investigating us in the first place. "

[vollkan]

Until page five, nothing about her seemed particularly scummy. At worst, I'd say that she didn't share her thoughts much. Someone noted that her poor reaction to Erratus Apathos' vote and "I love wagon" comment might be noteworthy, but even in my short time here I've seen people react that way to early wagons often enough to think it's innocuous.

Okay, I agree.

On page five, she tells us that she's in the process of moving and won't have internet access for a while. She gets it back on Sunday, 26 October. Unfortunately, her mother had to be taken to the emergency room the following day, preventing her from posting her thoughts Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

I make two points here:
1) Her excuses could be genuine...but I very much doubt it
2) Nonetheless, a lie from her about this wouldn't be scummy, for the simple fact that it would fit with her meta of making excuses and so on and her general avoidance of posting.

When she's called on it, she gives a very odd non-explanation of her past behaviour. In fact, let me quote the exchange in full:

Unvote Vote BG

reasoning?

He claimed mason with rice. You just voted him. After the claim. So I figure that's why he is voting you.

Speaking of..

unvote

I am not sure I understand what your whole objective was with your little scheme but I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Unvote

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?

I've played games with masons before, and also games with lovers where one was scum- I was part of that pair... come to think of it xtoxm was my partner too. nonetheless, unvote at this time

Not only is this a bad post, because it fails to show justification for voting post-claim, acknowledgement of the post-claim vote, response to the claim or any other recognisable, rational link to the game. Instead, she responds to a question raised in the post immediately preceding hers without answering it in the least and to the identity of Xtoxm, whom she recognises from a past game.

As I said in my read, BG's post 217 showed she had done very little reading at all - her attack on X was by no means linked to anything specific, other than his generality (which has been fairly consistent throughout) and an attack on his list of top 3 scum, which was way back in post 77. She did also give an answer (albiet a completely vague one) to Rhinox's post 125 question to her. That would be entirely consistent with lazy skim-reading, of course - which is exactly what we would expect from BG.

The point I am making is that it is extremely unlikely that she was actually aware that X had claimed - this is only reinforced by the fact that in 223 she says "nonetheless, unvote at this time". She did express some skepticism over the claim, given her meta experiences, but she saw the claim as a reason to unvote.

Thus,

• "fails to show justification for voting post-claim" - It would be consistent with what we know of BG and with her "nonetheless" resopnse to see that she wasn't aware she was voting post-claim
  
• "fails to show [...] acknowledgement of the post-claim vote" - This is not true. She unvoted in response to having it pointed out to her. Short of her saying "Gosh darn it I voted post-claim", she acknowledged it and responded adequately.
  
• "response to the claim or any other recognisable, rational link to the game. Instead, she responds to a question raised in the post immediately preceding hers without answering it in the least and to the identity of Xtoxm, whom she recognises from a past game. " - Again, not true. She showed that she knew there was a claim. I am not sure what you are looking for here. She was responding specifically to Pyro's question but, in doing so, she showed us where she stood on the claim (ie. didn't see it as a complete clear, but still unvote-worthy. Which, tbh, is a completely reasonable response)

I have a hard time saying if her play is scummy or just undesirable play so far. I can certainly imagine a mafia player posting this kind of response to a mistake like trying to lynch a claimed mason. I think that the three/four vote range is generally a very safe point for mafia to jump on a wagon against a player given the number of votes to lynch--neither so early nor so late that a mafia player must provide good reasons for a vote. Perhaps it's the town's fault for not reacting more strongly to this play, but she doesn't provide much for me to decide one way or the other. I'm comfortable saying it isn't good town play.

It certainly isn't "good town play" - but that doesn't make it scummy, ESPECIALLY for BG.

She refers to an event that occurred a week ago as an excuse for not posting frequently and attacks me for, in her mind, requiring her to put the game before her family. The post is completely illogical.

At first, I thought it was simply because she was genuinely upset about her mother and angry at me. But that doesn't excuse the fact that her excuse is odd. She nowhere indicated that she had obligations in real life which might interfere with the game in the period of time between Thursday, 30 October and Sunday, 02 November. She refers to a post she made which referred to an event that in the past, Monday, 27 October, prevented her from posting. A short run of posts on Thursday indicated to me that she now had time to contribute but chose not to.

Based on the information provided, I cannot have been expected to know what she clearly expected me to.

Hmm...You're completely correct here, and I am honestly a bit annoyed with myself that I didn't pick this up earlier. I am as skeptical as you are about her excuse, but I would make two points:
1) I don't think it is unreasonable to posit that, if indeed her mother had been sent to hospital, that, despite the ongoing posting by BG, she may not have been able to post significant levels
2) If her excuse here is pure BS (and, frankly, I think that it probably is) then it wouldn't be at all atypical of her meta-wise.

I think that this was an unsubtle attempt to confuse the issue, her posting habits, with a different, apparently related one in which she held a clear advantage. It's an disgustingly effective tactic which I have seen used in far too many formal debates.

Also, I honestly suspect that she capitalized on sympathy to discredit me after I indicated interest in a wagon against her. Bad town players over-react to wagons against them, too, I know.

1) If her excuse was genuine, then she might have been understandably annoyed
2) If BS, then she was milking it to avoid being pressured to post

Neither of those is inherently scummy. It would hardly be surprising to learn that townies sometimes lie to avoid having to post - posting can be a fairly draining thing and requires a large degree of focus. Even the emotional blackmail, whilst very dodgy, I don't see as scummy inherently - just horridly anti-town.

BG's meta only augments my point here. She is a player that we all know has used excuses (equally likely to be complete BS) to avoid posting. I am not defending or justifying her conduct at all. I condemn it without qualification. BUT, I don't think it makes her scum.

In the same post, though, she does something which looks more calculating than an emotional town player. First, she adopts Rhinox' reasoning to justify a vote against orangepenguin, a claimed vigilante. Second, and more importantly, she makes an exaggerated effort to say "look how reasonable and pro-town I am" when she casts the vote.

If she was seriously angry solely for stated reasons, then she was obviously cooling down by the time she wrote the second paragraph. This makes me think that she intentionally left the flawed appeal to emotion in the first paragraph. It also indicates that her nod in her final sentence to her earlier emotion was calculating--she knew that she should vote based on reason, but leaves in and flaunts a tirade which she knows will sway players to let emotion dictate their response to her.

Nothing she says suggests she was at all aware of OP's claim. I don't think that is a prospect you can discount, given this is BG we are talking about.

Okay,
1) If her excuse was genuine: I don't see how you can claim she was "obviously cooling down". She still said she was pissed off and so on. In this case, I think her vote was either genuine or spiteful. Either way, not scummy.
2) If her excuse was BS, then we have a real problem here because now she is using an appeal to emotion not only to avoid posting (which is horridly anti-town but not scummy) but also to augment an attack she makes by saying how fantastic and reasonable she is, conversely making people look nasty for attacking her. That is either scummy, or just stupidity.

1) She contributed little to the game, much less to scum-hunting.
--One read: Scum doesn't like hunting for scum.
2) Her votes both explicitly referenced other players' reasoning.
--One read: Scum cloaks itself in town reasoning.
3) Her votes both landed on players with previously large bandwagons against them.
--One read: Scum hides in the crowd.
4) Her votes both landed on claimed pro-town roles, which she failed to acknowledge.
--One read: Newb scum is excited to hear that townie power-role could get lynched.
5) She reacted terribly to a bandwagon against her.
--One read: Scum stands to lose more than town when under scrutiny.
6) She used an appeal to emotion, illogical arguments and deceptive play to work against the bandwagon.
--One read: She didn't have a real defence.
7) She asked for replacement after her effort to prevent a bandwagon against her spectacularly failed.
--One read: She didn't have a real defence.

I said this before, but it bears repeating:

I'm not completely sure this is worth a lynch. It really could be all explained away by extremely lousy play. But as it stands, her play in this game, before any question of her meta was raised, is enough to keep her at the top of my list of suspects.

I'll respond in the format you give:
1) She contributed little to the game, much less to scum-hunting.
--One read: In light of her meta, this doesn't deserve any attention
2) Her votes both explicitly referenced other players' reasoning
--One read: Reflects laziness. In light of her meta, this doesn't deserve any attention
3) Her votes both landed on players with previously large bandwagons against them.
--One read: Well, she wouldn't form her own opinions on things - that would take effort - so it makes sense that she would end up on wagons.
4) Her votes both landed on claimed pro-town roles, which she failed to acknowledge.
--One read: She wasn't aware of the claims (and, in respect of the vig claim, may simply have been pissed off)
5) She reacted terribly to a bandwagon against her.
--One read: The "scum has more to lose" argument is very dodgy - it is by no means desirable for a townie to have herself lynched. Her poor reaction makes more sense with avoiding posting
6) She used an appeal to emotion, illogical arguments and deceptive play to work against the bandwagon.
--One read: Be honest, the "appeal to emotion, illogical arguments and deceptive play" are really all the same thing - her use of the mother's problem. It might be genuine, and it might not. Either way, I don't think it is very compelling evidence she is scum, rather than just frustrated town or a bad player who is trying to avoid posting
7) She asked for replacement after her effort to prevent a bandwagon against her spectacularly failed.
--One read: She had given up because she was being forced to post.

I'm not completely sure this is worth a lynch. It really could be all explained away by extremely lousy play. But as it stands, her play in this game, before any question of her meta was raised, is enough to keep her at the top of my list of suspects.

Yeah. Her play definitely warrants suspicion, objectively speaking. I do, however, think there is enough ambiguity about what she was doing that it shouldn't be enough to carry a lynch.

[vollkan]

ummm... unless some weird disruption of the space-time continuoum occured, your lynch has been considered for the better part of about 10 pages. There's nothing rushed about that. You even commented once on sche's case previously. I won't sympathize with you for taking, what, almost 2 weeks now to get caught up on the thread. I know its big, but thats more than enough time. I don't recall anyone asking for a PbPa (which would take longer), so making a PbPa is also no excuse for not actually reading the thread through once before going back for the PbPa. (for the record, with every new game I play, the more I start to think a PbPa doesn't serve much of a purpose).

Most of that 10 pages was on the meta case. Shez's case was one I couldn't really rebut unless I had reread. And I accept that I took way longer than others - but that's because of my pbp. I hold myself to the same standards of transparency as other people - which requires that I give full and frank disclosure of my opinion on the game.

So, you've basically now soft-claimed townie, and you're explaining bg's actions as lying to avoid posting... I don't think any townie - even a poor playing inexperienced one - would want to or have to lie to avoid posting.

1) Nothing I have said should be taken as soft-claiming

2) I haven't based my defence on BG lying as town. I've looked at two possibiltiies: defence being genuine and defence not being genuine. The possibility of genuineness detracts from the strength of the case substantially in and of itself, and this is only compounded by the fact that even town BG could expectedly lie. It's worth having a look at MD right now - because the ethics of this very issue (lying regarding external circumstances) is being discussed. I cannot at all see why you are so dismissive of the prospect of town lying to avoid posting. If a player doesn't feel like posting, odds are they won't post. I am sure we have all been in the position of knowing that there is pressure on us to post something, but not being able to muster the effort needed to post. In such circumstances, in order to avoid the suspicion which might accrue from not posting, it's hardly surprising that town might lie. Whatever might be said for the questionable ethics of this, the possiiblity of it being unethical doesn't make it scummy. I see no reason why a townie would have any motivation to be honest about their lurking if they could cover it with an irrefutable lie. The only reason they might not is if they calculated that any lie would be subject to skepticism - but that same logic is just as likely to be used by scum.

If she's townie, she was probably telling the truth, because if she didn't want to post (as townie), that implies she didn't really care, and wouldn't have bothered to try to avoid her lynch by lying to explain her lurking.

Your reasoning here attempts to draw an equivalence between not wanting to post and not wanting to play at all. BG is always lazy, but the very fact she has played a cluster of games reflects, bizarrely, that she likes being in games but doesn't like actually posting.

[vollkan]

I realize some players use "townie" and "pro-town player" interchangeably as meaning the same thing. If your use of townie was meant as a general descriptive word for town players, then ignore everything above this paragraph (for now). I do see how some town roles would want to lurk a little as a strategy and it might be acceptable to lie about it to avoid their own lynch if their role is powerful enough. Just please be more careful of your use of "townie" in the future, because calling somebody "townie" means something completely different than calling someone "pro-town".

I spent ages typing out an answer to your above points, only to read this.

I was using "townie" interchangably with "pro-town player". That is why I said "nothing I have said should be taken as a soft claim" - maybe you misunderstood this, but I was trying to say that I wasn't using the word "townie" in any role-specific sense.

FWIW, I suggest that people avoid this ambiguity by referring to "townies" in the role sense as "vanillas". Of course, doing so doesn't avoid this sort of confusion arising.

[vollkan]

I've already explained my decision not to claim. I am of the view that claiming is basically an "any last words" sort of thing. Seeing as I hadn't even gotten to rebutting the case against me, it struck me as, well, absurd to think that I should claim in such a situation. I've seen enough premature claims in my time on this site to know there is nothing wrong with holding back.

Also, it was actually Bio who brought up the whole point about the quotes being out of context. And, in any event, I hardly see why pointing out something like that should be at all problematic.

[vollkan]

I've already explained my decision not to claim. I am of the view that claiming is basically an "any last words" sort of thing. Seeing as I hadn't even gotten to rebutting the case against me, it struck me as, well, absurd to think that I should claim in such a situation. I've seen enough premature claims in my time on this site to know there is nothing wrong with holding back.

Also, it was actually Bio who brought up the whole point about the quotes being out of context. And, in any event, I hardly see why pointing out something like that should be at all problematic.

At this point, I'm looking for material. If I get a case, I'll present it. As it is, I've been silent these past few days because I haven't been able to find it, and when I noticed something funny, I pointed it out (re: Biochop). Then Schez asked for my opinions, and I explained what I've been thinking so far.

I figure the odds of ONE of you two being scum are pretty good. After reading the mason claim post-replacement, Pyro struck me as funny as I've already explained. Being that you were in the spotlight and pyro refused to take action on you made me more suspicious of him, and curious as to a pairing, or a forced pairing. As it is, it looks like a forced/framed pairing, under the assumption that pyro is scum, but I want to be sure before I let you off the hook vollkan.

What do you mean by a "forced/framed pairing"?

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.

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.

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.

The sense I am getting here is that nothing I can say or do could possibly avert the suspicion that you have of me. That's very important because it shows that the suspicions you have simply aren't based on anything. 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.

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..

Oh wow, i didn't even realize how long this had been going on for before I replaced in. If Vollkan isn't our man, I advocate a pyro lynch as well.

Rather than just treating me as the default candidate, how about actually justifying why I should be the lynch?

[vollkan]

1) Things such as what? Did you have anything specific in mind when you made that statement?

I wasn't thinking of anything specifically, but what I did mean was that my reread found a number of things which were scummy and which discussion could take place on. Obviously, the mason claims through a spanner in much of that, but what I guess I am trying to say is the idea, implicit in some of the recent posts, that the time has come for a compromise lynch is invalid.

2) You don't think that your lynch might help us to lynch bionicchop2? You haven't said it in so many words, but the tone of your posts, especially when directed against bionicchop2 seem to go beyond mere resentment of his attitude and dogged pursuit of you. Do you think that bionicchop2 is unlikely to be scum? I notice how high his score is by your system--the highest score of any player not claiming mason. If your lynch could expose bionicchop2, do you think it's valid? Isn't a one to one exchange a gain for the town? Or is it not likely to be one to one in your eyes?

Well, first off, my PBPA speaks for itself in that, next to the masons, I find bio scummiest (which means Bio would be my pick for lynchee, seeing as I am prepared to accept the claims). There are a number of points where I criticise Bio in my read, my rebuttal against some of his arguments have also shown my issues with him, and his recent posts have had this implicit idea that, somehow, I am today's default lynch. In essence, more than anybody else, the manner of his attack is less directed towards legitimate questioning and argument and more directed towards securing my lynch. His argument has shifted from BG's meta, to my being shifty, to your case on BG, and now to this weird sort of "shrugging of the shoulders" compromise/information lynch, interspersed with ad hominem attacks on me being a "skilled debater" and "grandiose" and so on. I think the term is "tunneling".

In pre-emption, this is not OMGUS - which is where you attack somebody

because

they are attacking you. Were I OMGUSing, I would be taking issue with far more people than just Bio. My problem with Bio is the way he has attacked me.

Now, it's true that my lynch will help advance the lynch of Bionic. But a genuine debate about the problems in Bio's (and other's) attitudes towards my lynch doesn't require my death to occur. In the scenario that I am lynched, what causes Bio to be singled out from others? Sure, my arguments against him will obviously play a role - but what singles him out will have to be scummy actions on his part, a factor which is operative independent of my own alignment.

Do I think Bio is obviously scum? Definitely not. There's a pride factor, and a generic emotional factor ("gut") which can operate to give townies tunnel-vision. What I am trying to say here is that there is a legitimate debate to be had right now about Bio, and any other attacks on me (along with anything else). The solution is not simply to make the gross assumption that either Bio or I are scum and lynch accordingly.

3) The two players with the highest scum score on your list have claimed mason. What exactly do you think of that claim, if you don't mind me asking?

Good question. The scores I give are reflective of "How scummy is this person's conduct?" not "What are the chances of this person being scum?" The reason for that is partly because the only way discrepancies usually arise is because of claims, which I can factor in my head - I don't need to have a numerical record thereof. The other reason is meta-based: to make me see whether what I identify as scummy actually is on review by me (that is to say, it's meta for my own research benefit in the future)

4) Now that you've completed your read-through, we can see who attracted the most of your attention. However, I don't think that's really a case. Do you intend to do more to scum-hunt? If so, what? And what have you waited for thus far?

My hope was that each person would go through the PBP and challenge me on specific points, with debate ensuing. I have the title "The Interrogator" for a reason - that I rely on questioning and arguing as my principal means of scumhunting. Usually, the way I do things when I don't replace is to compile a PBPA on each player and then debate my findings - with the way people conduct themselves in the debate further influencing my suspicions. I've been doing the same sort of thing here from the beginning. I don't see a black-and-white distinction between "defending" and "attacking" because, in the course of defending, the scummy nature of certain attacks is revealed (bio most obviously as an example). What I would like at this stage is for people to end their self-fulfilling prophecies of the day having reached its standstill and to have a look at what I've put forward (not restricted to Bio either).

[vollkan]

Vol: i'm not a fan of your numerical list. For one, its easy for you to use it as a manipulation tool if you're scum. Especially on such a large scale like a 0-100 thing, and you arbitrarily assigning point values to certain scummy actions, it wouldn't be too dificult for you to shape the way we would think about players just by making small numerical changes. Look how much the 9/10 of a cent changed the perception of gasoline prices.

Fair point.

I've used the system as town and as scum, and I admit that it is open to manipulation when I am scum. Let me stress to everybody that the numbers just reflect my own opinion on the relative strength of things. I try to justify myself as much as possible in the PBP (within reasonable limits given the sheer effort of doing the PBPA), and I'd hope that the reasons for assigning values and why I assign particular values (ie. a 1, 2 or 3, etc.) are apparent. If not, ask me. It's no more capable of scummy manipulation than any other system.

And even if you're town, as I've argued early on in the thread, I'm not a big fan of publishing lists with your thoughts on every player in the game, especially on D1. I'm sure you read my posts during your readthrough, so I'll spare the group by not posting THAT wall again. The reason I didn't call you out on it is b/c players in this game have played with you before and have seen your list in action before and didn't think your list was too big of a deal.

I do lists/replacement PBPs in pretty much every game I am in. I'm happy to debate this point if you think it's necessary, but my meta for it makes it a nulltell for me.

I also want to say that i dislike the thinking that vol's mislynch could help us lynch bio, or visa versa this early in the game. For all we know, its just as likely that they're both town or they're both scum, as it is that they're 1 of each. yes, Vol showing up town would make bio the opportunistic D2 target, but planning bio's lynch for tomorrow by first making a mislynch on vol today seems incredibly scummy to me...

I was trying to make this as part of my argument in my previous post. There's a debate which needs to be had on bio, and which doesn't require either of us to be lynched. As I said, I don't think Bio is necessarily scum, and I don't like the idea that a chain should be set up whereby a lynch is predicated on a set-up of future lynches.

Posts in this thread are starting to get too long. I find this usually causes most of the players to become disinterested. I haven't read the latest batch, i'm not looking forward to trying it, infact it's unlikely that I will.

I think we should just lynch Volkan.

I could rant and rave right now about how absolutely stupid this is. On the other hand, X, you've proved my point about the whole idea of a default lynch and the problems with the wagon on me better than I could ever have.

X is, quite simply, resigned to my lynch. He has advanced no arguments and no rebuttal. He's now even admitted to ignoring the thread. The fact that he is a claimed mason only makes this more obscence, because it legitimises others making the stupid play that X is engaging in.

[vollkan]

It's certainly fair to ask me to respond directly to your post by post analysis. I'll treat it as the potential case against every player, if I may.

Okay, good. That should make proper use of it. And I have no problem with you treating as a potential case (obviously bearing in mind that the PBP is a very abbreviated sort of format).

That's a reasonable enough vote, though the major point was to probe vollkan's precise level of suspicion of bionicchop2. Frankly, I never expected vollkan to accept the lynch merely because I asked him questions. I asked the questions to figure out exactly why he wouldn't accept the lynch, which I assumed included doubts about bionicchop2's scumminess.

Frankly, I figured as much. You didn't strike me as dopey enough to be seriously advocating a two-fer lynch, so I figured you were probably just trying to determine my attitude towards Bio more closely. Of course, I didn't want to pre-empt your defence against Rhinox in case you had actually slipped.

And, sadly, you didn't answer my most burning question: what is ixfij?

Weird...I had it typed out.

Anyway, when I first typed out mrfixij's name I wrote "ixfij" as a typo. I then decided to continue using it, out of interest in seeing how long before somebody would pick up on it. I'll put it into the box of "it seemed like a good idea at the time"

(Of course, I am still going to call him ixfij because that's what I reflexively type now!)

[vollkan]

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.

I am not saying that you need to make a new case in every single post. What I am saying, though, is that "I voted for you on page X" does not inherently justify the continuance of that vote on page (X+Y). In the case of this game, I have made detailed responses to the case against me and have posted fresh content of my own, with some of my wagonners only meeting this with what is basically just a shrug of the shoulders. And it's not about making yourself "look town". It's about making the best lynch decision possible which, almost by definition, cannot occur unless you consider all relevant matters - of which my defences rank very highly in terms of importance.

In essence,

having voted is not a justification for continuing to vote.

That's just a sly way of advocating default lynching.

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

This is pure bullshit. We argued over the meta case. You haven't argued with me on my subsequent defences or material. There's no issue of arguing in circles here. Again, you are just posting a justification for a resigned default lynch of me.

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.

Okay, so we move to the next point:

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.

Hmm, I would have hoped you would understand the logic.

Okay, in order for this game to be meaningful, cases need to be based on objective reasons. That is to say, things other than "I get a bad vibe from vollkan/BG". Thus far, this game has been fairly good in terms of objectivity - ie. you argued a meta case. The key difference between objective and subjective arguments is that the former are capable of being rebutted. Now, I cannot prove conclusively to the rest of you that BG was not, for instance, trying to lynch power roles. But I can rebut the argument by raising significant doubts about it - ie. by showing that BG most likely wasn't even aware of the claims. In this game, it is rare that complete refutations can occur, but townies should always be open to rethink their position in light of reasonable doubts.

Now, I don't deny that you (and others, of course) might still have good reasons for continuing to suspect me. But, you

need

to justify that continuance in light of my defences.

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've rebutted this already. It's not a question of "our own opinions". I missed a set of votes on BG which made some of what I had said wrong but, in a classic case of missing the forest for the trees, you blew it out of proportion because it had little to do with the point of my argument.

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.

I know I am not scum (useless for the rest of you), but I freely admit my suspicions could be completely off. I'm open to discussion and debate on the points I've raised and I am open to having my mind changed.

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.

This merits a (+2). You're playing the trick here of drawing an equivalence between the fact that we cannot ever know things for sure with a kind of "anything goes" attitude. See, Bio, the impression I am getting of you is that you think that having a suspicion at one point in time justifies you clinging to that rock unless you are absolutely convinced otehrwise. That's both scummy and obscenely anti-town - it avoids having to engage with any material post-vote. GF, in stark contrast, is playing properly: that is, with a willingness to change his view based on a reasonable doubt.

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.

And we have 1 player with 5 votes on him who also has no overwhelming case against him

Seriously, this is just classic default lynching attitude. You "believe" in what you have said - without countering my rebuttal. And you dig your feet in by refusing to shift unless somebody rises above me.

I do agree the vol/bg discussion has run its course. all players seem now locked into their beliefs regardless of whats being said.

I don't think that's true at all. Bio, RBT and X stand out as the obstinates, but I think that others (eg. yourself, Shez and GF) have shown a continued willigness to adjust your thinking.

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?

Okay, to begin with you say that you haven't given a single reason to explain why you are voting me. Then again, the way this game is going, that doesn't seem to be a problem.

The "I am voting for my top suspect attitude" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more people say that the day has reached its end, the more likely it is that the day draws to a close. Shez has just promised to go through my PBP and I don't think we have pursued many avenues of inquiry. Again, this whole game seems to be collapsing in towards a default lynch.

I didn't like vol's repeated "i dont need to claim" attitude.

You're completely misrepresenting my posiiton. I've been over this so many times now. I never said "I don't need to claim". I see claiming as an "any last words" sort of thing. That avoids things like the premature claims we had here. I'd also love for you to explain what is actually scummy about the fact I didn't claim.

Anyway, I am now at L-1. Short of somebody else actually claiming scum, I cannot see Bio, Pyro, X or RBT budging from me. I see some glimmer of hope in Ixfij, and OP.

[vollkan]

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.

Hold on.

If you admit that your position there depends on a presumption of my being scum (and thus deceptively excluding it), then where does that presumption arise from?

You are at L-1. It is time for you to claim

*sigh* I was going to see whether my last post changed anything for you, but it seems not. I've done my best to dissuade the wagon against me, but I cannot refute emotional recalcitrance:

Claim: Doctor

. I cannot protect myself (I checked with mod), nor can I protect the same person on consecutive nights.

At this point, I'll admit my reluctance to claim was partly influenced by the fact of having to claim doc -notorious scum fakeclaim and a very bad role to have revealed. I wasn't aware of the vig or mason claims when I first refused to claim, but finding them only made me more pleased that I acted the way I did.

[vollkan]

Vote: Bio

I thought you might do this if you decided the writing was on the wall for you, but I admit this takes me by surprise. Anyway, I guess now it really is between the two of us.

[vollkan]

Cross-posted.

Your first "breadcrumb" is hardly a breadcrumb at all - it's a well-known fact.

As for your second, it's interesting that don't post the context in which it was made - namely immediately after being voted.

And, no, I haven't breadcrumbed. I checked BG's posts, hoping for some foresight on her own part, but found nothing.

[vollkan]

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

This much we can agree on.

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.

Nice try, but this is pure bullshit

There is plenty of incentive for scum to counter-claim me here. Think about it, we have a claimed vig and a claimed a doc. If I get counter-claimed, given the already high level of suspicion on me, it is more than likely I end up hanging by my neck. That gives scum a free pass to kill OP at night. One scum for a doc and a vig is a very good deal for scum.

The fact it is you who is counter-claiimng only enhances this point. My death would have cast immense suspicion on you, given that it would have given my arguments the legitimacy they deserve.

[vollkan]

Either one of you two are lying, or we have two doctors, which makes for an interesting closed game.

Two docs is extremely unlikely. We already have two claimed masons, and a claimed vig. Unless the masons/vig are fakeclaiming, or the scum is ridiculously powerful, it's probably reasonable to assume that there aren't two docs.

[vollkan]

GG all. Funnily enough, that was actually one of the most enjoyable games I have had recently.

The weirdest thing was that I genuinely did think the case against me/BG was pure BS.