Mini 999 - Isolated Mafia (Game Over)

[AGar]

VOTE: DavidParker

I don't feel like bothering with RQS right now, so I'll start the RVS shenanigans!

[AGar]

OMGUS.

One scum down, X to go.

[AGar]

Also, my name is NOT all caps. It is capital A, capital G, lower case a, lower case r. I will consider no votes cast against me until people spell it right!

So who is this AGAR fellow?

[AGar]

vote: idiotking

pregame pseudo-agreeing with me is enough of a random reason to get things rolling.

Is it really a random reason? Doesn't seem like one.

[AGar]

Vote: MichelSableheart

'cause Bandwagons are hawt.

Vote: TheButtonmen

Bandwagoning so soon? And under the pretense of joking? I think not.

Worried about a buddy?

[AGar]

Vote: MichelSableheart

'cause Bandwagons are hawt.

Vote: TheButtonmen

Bandwagoning so soon? And under the pretense of joking? I think not.

Worried about a buddy?

Nope. I just think that bandwagoning is dumb. This particular one sounds suspicious to me.

So do you propose we just twiddle our thumbs around and not lynch anyone and let scum pick us off one by one then? Bandwagoning is how a lynch comes 'round.

I personally have a feeling that scum was trying to lengthen the time they had for discussion. I know for sure that MME was rather slow confirming, and he also didn't post in the game thread pre-game. Definately wants time to talk to his buddies before exposing himself in here.

Are you for real with this? Ever consider people may have just had poor timing and aren't on the site 24/7? This game is a majority start for confirmations, so scum trying to hold off confirmations don't always get that to work. And as for not posting in the thread pre-game, why should he? I didn't either, and I confirmed and bookmarked the thread two days ago. Does that make me one of his buddies? Ever consider people just don't feel like pre-game banter and would rather focus their time on other games?

How many VIs is this game going to have... -_-

Seriously, I can't believe how far people are stretching to get a suspect already.

[AGar]

No, I propose that we use reasoned argument instead of random jumping-on-wagons. Bandwagoning is how rushed kills come along.

Bandwagoning also pulls scum out of hiding, establishes reads on players and often can lead to a telling scumslip. So your view on bandwagons is flawed and distorted.

Besides, it's the early game. If you can use "reasoned argument" to find scum after one or two posts by players, then you go right ahead and do that. In the meantime, while you look like an ass, I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.

VOTE: AWA

[AGar]

[1]When making that vote, it was the best lead I had. Him not being online is a possible explanation, of course, but that doesn't erase the slight increase in possibility of MME being scum.

[2]As for the reason for posting in the thread pre-game, I already discussed that. We only have 19 days till deadline hits, so any discussion we can have before the game actually started is a bonus. Besides, with pre-game discussion, scum would have had less time to form a plan. I'm not talking about random banter, I'm talking about actual discussion and attempts to find the scum. I still haven't heard a good reason why we shouldn't have started discussing the game as soon as we received our rolepm's.

[3]And aren't you a bit of a hypocrite when attacking my reasoning for being weak? If you compare my reasoning for voting MME with your reasoning for voting DavidParker, I think you'll find that my reasoning is far more solid.

[4]There is absolutely no reason to disregard reasoning after one or two posts. In fact, the sooner players start to use actual reasoning, the better IMO. In an ideal world, random votes wouldn't exist. I consider you deterring the use of reasoning an attempt to needlessly stall discussion.

Unvote

Vote: AGar

[1] - So you expected to come in and find scum right off the bat? I think you're an idiot then.

[2] - Pregame confirmations shouldn't be used as a deadline extender. FFS, not everyone has gotten a role, and you can't even vote to get a reaction. You sir, are proving to be more and more of an idiot.

[3] - Yes, my reasoning for voting DP is "weak" compared to yours. But I even said it was a random vote, I didn't try and say "Guys, I found scum in DP!". So my reasoning is at least sound, where as you are trying to build a case in your first post on someone who hasn't even started posting yet.

[4] - Where did I deter the use of reasoning? I said your reasoning was idiotic and flawed and you were trying to jump to a conclusion off of nothing and that you were pretty much a worthless asset to the town, but I never said "Hey guys, don't use reasoning." I'm all for reasoning when there's things to make reasoning off of. You are trying to create a scumtell out of nothing. In the pre-game, 8 of 12 players posted in the thread. Nothing was brought up about the game, and if you were really keen on promoting discussion to "extend" the deadline, then why didn't you try and post something meaningful? Stop trying to be a hero and just die, scum.

You seem to misunderstand something. Games usually open with RVS or RQS. You don't just come in and say "BTW I'VE GOT SCUM FOUND LOLZ." Why? Because then the town comes to one of two conclusions - either you're an idiot, or you're scum trying to push a mislynch or start an early bus on their partner, and still an idiot.

I say scum.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: MichelSableheart

[AGar]

[1] - So you expected to come in and find scum right off the bat? I think you're an idiot then.

I don't expect to come in and find scum immediately, though I do believe it's possible. However, I do believe that voting for a valid reason is far more effective in the early game then voting completely randomly.

So basically beginning a false case and trying to bury someone before they come into the game is a valid play in your books. Got it.

[2] - Pregame confirmations shouldn't be used as a deadline extender. FFS, not everyone has gotten a role, and you can't even vote to get a reaction. You sir, are proving to be more and more of an idiot.

I expect chauchau to be a good enough mod to not have hours between his different rolepm's, so everyone should have received his role pm when the game is open for posting. And voting to get a reaction is highly overrated.

You really are dense. I didn't mean chauchau (a her, btw) didn't send all role PMs out at the same time. I meant not everyone has looked in their inbox and read their role PM. Thus, not everyone is aware of the game, thus discussion would be akin to tunneling, as you are not getting the full picture. And if you think voting to get a reaction is highly overrated, then you obviously are a fairly poor scumhunter.

[4] - Where did I deter the use of reasoning?

Besides, it's the early game. If you can use "reasoned argument" to find scum after one or two posts by players, then you go right ahead and do that. In the meantime, while you look like an ass, I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.

Mm yes. I said that he was going to look like an ass for trying to use reason after one or two posts by players. You, clearly a misrepresenter extraordinaire, seem to believe I said never use reason. I didn't. Even AWA, whom I was attacking with that point, didn't interpret it that way...

You seem to misunderstand something. Games usually open with RVS or RQS. You don't just come in and say "BTW I'VE GOT SCUM FOUND LOLZ." Why? Because then the town comes to one of two conclusions - either you're an idiot, or you're scum trying to push a mislynch or start an early bus on their partner, and still an idiot.

You also have to understand something. Games usually open with RVS or RQS because they are a way to start discussion. However, they are definately not the best way to start discussion, let alone the only way to start discussion. In my experience, actually using a believable reason for your vote, no matter how weak, is far more likely to start discussion then a random vote is.

If there is a better way, then how come the majority of this site, a site DEDICATED TO THE GAME OF MAFIA, isn't using these "better ways"? Hmm? HMM? I'll tell you why - because your idea is a sure way to get yourself killed. You are trying to create a scumtell out of what you dislike about a particular group of players' out-of-thread business, NOT what they are doing in the game to make them scummy. What do you do, may I ask, when a game starts with closed PM confirmations and no confirmation stage posting? What if the mod only keeps to himself who has confirmed and simply puts a number up? What do you do then?

And I will ask again. If you were SO set on getting discussion going in the pre-game that you're willing to out and out accuse someone of being scum for not posting in the thread, because you weren't mildly suspicious or intrigued, you came out and said "I think scum was waiting to confirm to plan and wouldn't have posted during the confirmations. MME was one of the last to confirm, and he didn't post in the pregame discussion." The only thing you didn't do is actually say "Therefore, MME is scum," but you set everything up and left the inference. That's the only possible direction of that statement. And you tack on a vote at the end, which with a statement like that says, "MME is scum,", then I ask - why did you not actually promote USEFUL discussion in the pre-game? All you did was point out something about AWA's past experience, ask why people weren't posting in the thread, and say we should use pre-game for discussion. Not ONCE did you actually attempt to start any kind of relevant discussion.

So why don't you cut the crap and quit the lying and make life easy - is MME your scumbuddy or are you trying to simply bury him before he comes to the game?

[AGar]

If there is a better way, then how come the majority of this site, a site DEDICATED TO THE GAME OF MAFIA, isn't using these "better ways"?

Allthough we are a site dedicated to mafia, far too few players learn to think. Every newbie game tells it's players that games are usually started with random voting. Far too few newbie games tell it's players why that is. With as a result that most players don't realize that absolutely the worst thing you can possibly do at the beginning of the game is actually vote completely randomly, because that means that you don't take any responsibility with your vote, don't have any intentions behind your vote, and as such your vote won't do anything to help spark discussion.

So why don't you IC then. Or write an article in MD? You seem to be complacent. As far as I'm concerned, this point is now moot.

What do you do, may I ask, when a game starts with closed PM confirmations and no confirmation stage posting? What if the mod only keeps to himself who has confirmed and simply puts a number up? What do you do then?

I make up a different reason for why somoene is slightly more likely scum. The mod preferring certain players to be scum, or a player with a preference for townroles replacing out are also favourites of mine. Basically, I make up a reason to vote a certain player, a proces that is sometimes known on this site as random voting. Not to mention the fact that I'm rarely the first to post after the thread opens, so usually I can comment on one of the earlier posts in the thread.

So you are admitting that at the beginning of every game you either: a) active lurk, or b) make up scumtells.

I claim that my effective statement of "MME is scum" (yes, it was intended that way), did what it was supposed to do: start actual discussion.

Only because I'd love to see you hanging from your neck in a high branch, scum.

why did you not actually promote USEFUL discussion in the pre-game? All you did was point out something about AWA's past experience, ask why people weren't posting in the thread, and say we should use pre-game for discussion. Not ONCE did you actually attempt to start any kind of relevant discussion.

Both questions serve a very important purpose: determining motivation of players. Which is exactly what can be expected from questions to get discussion started. I seriously have a very difficult time understanding why you are attacking reasoning and questions that make little sense, when you are perfectly happy to completely ignore reasoning that makes no sense at all. Why is "I vote X because his avatar is blue, allthough this doesn't have any bearing on his alignement" a good reason to vote early, but "I vote X because he did something that scum is extremely slightly more likely to do then town" not?

Because I'm not trying to say X is scum because his avatar is blue, and it is full and well clear that it is simply a method of starting discussion, seeing if a player overreacts to having a vote on him. You, on the other hand, are saying X is scum because you made up a scumtell that you tailored to him, and actually think that you are right in that matter. I'm not attacking reasoning - reasoning is part of this game, and you apparently are not seeing that everything I am saying to you is reasoning right now - I'm attacking your terribly flawed logic. Just because people go with the status quo (which I even admitted I am not fond of, but I didn't feel like typing out 11 questions at this point in time), doesn't make them scum. You are repeatedly and consistently trying to make up scumtells to suit your needs and push a case that isn't there in order to fuel a mislynch.

THAT is my REASONING for believing you to be scum.

Thank you, and good day.

[AGar]

'cause it's a worthless question that adds nothing to the game other then noise.

Your concern over me voting you is noted and dismissed.

Aaand back to

Vote: TheButtonmen.

Why?

No question is worthless. If there is really a simple, innocent answer, then provide it. Do not attempt to handwave interrogatives by claiming them to be insignificant. You have not had a valid reason for a single one of your actions this game, yet you have voted for two players, each of which already had votes on them. To me, this looks like a scum trying too hard to start a bandwagon. At best you are a severe liability to the town.

AGar, you play

really

suspiciously to me... I want to say that the fact that you seem to want to use RVS as an excuse for building crap arguments and denying the utilization of logic and reasoning is a scumtell. That said, I still feel that TheButtonmen is more of a liability, though if it came time to hammer I would not hesitate.

Similarly to AGar, I'm suspicious of DavidParker's denial of analysis and reasoning. RVS is not a required stage, people.

I'm reserving opinions on MichelSableheart. So far, all he(?)'s really done is call AGar on his refusal to abandon RVS, which I support. This isn't a town-tell, though.

Pretty sure I abandoned RVS a while ago. People really need to start reading. Where have I used RVS as an excuse for building a crap argument? Yes, RVS does vote pointlessly. It also can be used to gain reactions. But oh wait, that's against your beliefs, I forgot. Still, MS is not only trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but he has ADMITTED that he either MAKES UP scumtells or ACTIVE LURKS until he has something to go on. HOW is that pro-town. And you know what would happen if everyone waited around until logic and reasoning could be formulated? NO ONE WOULD POST. Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a reason to vote for TBM is that HE posted a RANDOM VOTE and YOU were able to draw from that. If he hadn't, you'd still be in the wings, waiting and lurking the thread.

Look, if you guys want to start some revolutionary new scum-hunting style, I'm all for it. But until it yields results, I'm going to stick with the things I know best. One of them is RVS/RQS to yield a reaction from a player and pressure them until they turn around and show that they're pro-town, or they break, and then (lo and behold) you start analyzing their play and finding illogicalities and unreasonable posts. Again, as I said, I am not denying that you need to use logic and reasoning to find scum, because you do. What I am saying is that MS is trying to make scumtells out of NOTHING, and you are defending him.

Which leads me into my next point. Class is in session.

Today's topic: Chainsaw Defense

AWA, you're attacking me with NO substance to your argument other than falsified information and misrepresentations of what I am saying. Funnily enough, you're attacking me for what I'm saying to MS. This is textbook chainsaw defense, and if MS flips scum, I'm positive you are too.

[AGar]

Agar

Agar already has a lot of things to analyze but I think the highlight is that he has already pointed fingers at rem, awa, and now Michel. From what I can see AWA and Button have already changed votes based on Agar. Lastly Agar is convinced Michel is a dumbass or scum (or both). Because Agar has pointed the most fingers and seems to have the most power over others

FOS: Agar

One question - when did I point fingers at rem? I missed that.

So you are admitting that at the beginning of every game you either: a) active lurk, or b) make up scumtells.

@a: In my very first post of the game, I'm doing everything I can to start discussion. That's the complete opposite of active lurking. What I was referring to is that I'm not the most active player in general, checking this site only twice a day, and as such usually am not the first player in a thread. That doesn't mean I'm actively avoiding a specific thread though.
@b: I definately make up scumtells, yes. That doesn't mean they aren't scumtells though.

Just because you make up a scumtell and the person happens to be scum, does not validate your scumtell. It simply means you got lucky. If you can show me a long stretch where the same things

You are repeatedly and consistently trying to make up scumtells to suit your needs and push a case that isn't there

in order to fuel a mislynch

.

And that is where you go wrong. There was no more intention to lynch in my vote of MMe then there was in your vote of DavidParker, DavidParker's vote of you, or remussaidow's vote of idiotking.

Really? Because as far as I've ever played, when you say someone is scum, you mean that you want them lynched. Or are you just backtracking now? Is MME not scum maybe?

@remussaidow: There are 11 players other then me in the game. Assuming 3 scum, that means every player has a 3/11 chance of being scum. If someone does something that is slightly more likely to be done by scum, that means he has a slightly higher chance of being scum then the rest of the players. It's not a false scumtell, it's an extremely weak scumtell.

Why are you so set on assuming 3 scum? Scumslip?

And you know what would happen if everyone waited around until logic and reasoning could be formulated? NO ONE WOULD POST. Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a reason to vote for TBM is that HE posted a RANDOM VOTE and YOU were able to draw from that. If he hadn't, you'd still be in the wings, waiting and lurking the thread.

Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a valid reason to vote for me is that I posted an actual reason for MME being scum. I find the insinuation that my behaviour discourages activity a complete misrepresentation.

Newsflash - this was at AWA, not you. I never insinuated that your behavior discourages activity. I said that your behavior is a poor way to start the game and has revealed you to be scum. I didn't know getting lynched was part of the scum's wincon.

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

A) Bandwagons aren't scummy.
B) Bullocks about appeasing AGar, I voted AWA because he's scum.
C) You agree the question is irrelevant but want to discuss it, that makes no sense.
D) No history why do you ask?
E) This game has had truck loads of scummyness already.

A.) I agree - AGar was calling it a scummy move

Wait what? Where did I call bandwagons a scummy move? I said AWA's hesitation about bandwagons was scummy.

[AGar]

Really? Because as far as I've ever played, when you say someone is scum, you mean that you want them lynched. Or are you just backtracking now? Is MME not scum maybe?

If I had to estimate the chance of MME being scum when I voted him, I would say that chance is about 31/110. You will notice that I unvoted him as soon as more information became available and stronger scumtells were present.

I claim that my effective statement of "MME is scum" (yes, it was intended that way)

So now you're backpedalling. So was he scum, or did he have a 28% chance of being scum?

Why are you so set on assuming 3 scum? Scumslip?

I wanted to have a number there to make the chances explicit. In my experience, mini normal setups with 12 players are either 2-10 vanilla, or 2-1-9 or 3-9 with powerroles, with the last two happening far more often then the first.

So you're still assuming something, or are you saying you know something. Either way, you're creating problems for the town.

I never insinuated that your behavior discourages activity. I said that your behavior is a poor way to start the game and has revealed you to be scum.

Let's look at the paragraph from which I quoted:

Pretty sure I abandoned RVS a while ago. People really need to start reading. Where have I used RVS as an excuse for building a crap argument? Yes, RVS does vote pointlessly. It also can be used to gain reactions. But oh wait, that's against your beliefs, I forgot.

Still, MS is not only trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but he has ADMITTED that he either MAKES UP scumtells or ACTIVE LURKS until he has something to go on. HOW is that pro-town. And you know what would happen if everyone waited around until logic and reasoning could be formulated? NO ONE WOULD POST.

Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a reason to vote for TBM is that HE posted a RANDOM VOTE and YOU were able to draw from that. If he hadn't, you'd still be in the wings, waiting and lurking the thread.

If you look at the bolded part, you let your "no one would post" remark follow immediately on a description of what you consider to be my behaviour. That does create a link between my behaviour and no one posting, thereby insinuating that my behaviour discourages activity.

You can't be serious with that stretch. You're going across a grand canyon of logic... I wasn't even addressing you. I was trying to point out to AWA how scummy you are, and you try and manipulate the context of that to say that I was accusing you of discouraging activity? I was saying if everyone followed AWA's lead, then no one would post. Ever. I thought that was crystal clear, considering I was on the offensive against AWA, not you. But apparently you either are really bad at building a false case as scum, or you've got a debilitating brain tumor because you can't comprehend something simple.

[AGar]

Agar

Agar already has a lot of things to analyze but I think the highlight is that he has already pointed fingers at rem, awa, and now Michel. From what I can see AWA and Button have already changed votes based on Agar. Lastly Agar is convinced Michel is a dumbass or scum (or both). Because Agar has pointed the most fingers and seems to have the most power over others

FOS: Agar

One question - when did I point fingers at rem? I missed that.

Well this is what happens when you drink, watch a movie and write a review over the course of a couple of hours... You said, “Is it really a random reason? Doesn't seem like one.” I took that as pointing a finger, perhaps it was just playful banter?

Ah just RVS banter.

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

A) Bandwagons aren't scummy.
B) Bullocks about appeasing AGar, I voted AWA because he's scum.
C) You agree the question is irrelevant but want to discuss it, that makes no sense.
D) No history why do you ask?
E) This game has had truck loads of scummyness already.

A.) I agree - AGar was calling it a scummy move

Wait what? Where did I call bandwagons a scummy move? I said AWA's hesitation about bandwagons was scummy.

You were not calling all bandwagons scummy, but you did say, “I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.” Again, alcohol and distractions got in the way. I was trying to say that you (Agar) were calling Button’s bandwagon views scummy, right after this happened Button unvoted, voted for AWA who you (Agar) had just voted for.

Ah ok. Yes, this did transpire.

[AGar]

Quote tags can rot in hell.

[AGar]

@MME: I can see how David and Screll are individually scummy, but there are virtually no interactions between them. Really not seeing where your gut read comes from.

I think I do:

DavidParker

He voted for Agar on a OMGUS vote. Analysis of action: rv which is a common occurrence at the beginning of a game.

3 FOSs??? who are you trying to impress??

VOTE: screl

I think he's seeing a subtle attempt at distancing here by DP, while screl is almost buddying up to him by trying to clear his OMGUS as a random vote. It's definitely not a normal interaction.

[AGar]

Also, per MME's request, I'll stop with the spewing MD stuff.

Vote no longer necessary.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Screl

[AGar]

After skimming the long walls that Michel and Agar wrote, I've come to the conclusion that they are by-and-large worthless. If either of you think there is a legitimate point for the game at hand buried in all of that noise, feel free to illuminate it, but I suspect that the lot of it is just mis-aimed MD fodder and not relevant to us.

AWA seems a little too focused on logic as the underpinning of the game. While it can be useful in small doses and is very useful in certain endgames, mafia is much more of a game of psychology than logic. This isn't a scumtell on your part, but continued focus on 'people who make fallacious arguments are scum' and 'people who discourage utilization of logic are obviously scum' aren't going to get you all that far. Focus on intentions and interactions.

I dislike this post of AGar's:

Also, per MME's request, I'll stop with the spewing MD stuff.

Vote no longer necessary.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Screl

Scum like nothing better than to muddy the waters and confuse the town. Not every firebrand is scum, of course, seeing as there is almost always a townie somewhere in the argument and all people can get angry from time to time. But when people get into these sorts of arguments it's usually because they got carried away without thinking. The fact that you feel your vote is no longer necessary once you have stopped arguing theory seems to imply that you never really thought Michel was scum, and you were simply trolling for an argument that had the effect of making the game thread harder to read.

Unvote, Vote: AGar

I got caught up in the argument and voted out of the fact that I had believed that Michel's theory was scummy, and ended up spewing MD discussion back and forth, but I had felt at the time it was game related. Several people have pointed out that our discussion was better served for MD, and I realize that I was likely grasping at straws at the time rather than likely pinpointing scum. I did feel that Michel was scum at one time, but I was also furiously engaged in the argument similarly, so my vision was clouded. I wasn't simply trolling for an argument, and that MD thread will likely re-surface in MD post-game.

[AGar]

Mafia Discussion.

[AGar]

I want to post right now... I have thoughts semi-formulating in my head. But my brain is fried right now from work... So I'm going to post later.

I would love to see more activity from DP (actual input in the game), Remu, IK, Merlin, Guthrie and more of what Copper has put forth.

Need... sleep... ugh...

[AGar]

Ok back, got a solid 5 hours of sleep. Brain is no longer mush (for now).

@DavidParker - I like that post, now just to keep the activity up.

There's been a lot of lurking in this game, which drives me insane. But I really noted how Screl came in in the middle of mine and MS's arguments, dropped his thoughts, threw out a FoS on anyone who had been remotely active, and then disappeared.

Also would like to see more MME, didn't mention that in my post.

[AGar]

@AGar - I did say that David's first vote was random, I also said that Copper, and Rems votes were random. Does this mean that all of them are scummy with me? Also I leave for 1 day and that makes me inactive therefore scum? I think you better check this thread because there are a number of others who are less active than myself.

For the first part, yes you did say Copper and Rems were random as well. But you didn't bring up OMGUS with their votes, you did with DP, and it seems like you're moving to buddy up to him. For the second part, I didn't say you lurked. I said you conveniently put in 3 FoSes in the midst of a massive heavy posting spree by myself and MS, where they could easily potentially slide by unnoticed or underrecognized. I also said I wanted to see more of other players in a post prior to that.

[AGar]

Agar – Are you serious? As difficult as it might be, I am going to try and break it down so that you can understand. DAVID’S VOTE WAS THE ONLY OMGUS VOTE. If I said the other ones were then that would be a lie.

I understand that. What I don't understand is why if you felt it was a random vote you mentioned the word OMGUS? Explain that to me, that's what I want to know. Otherwise, right now, it looks like a scumbuddy trying to preemptively answer any questions that might come up about his partner's RVS vote.

Why are you freaking out, again? You're at

L-5

for christ's sake. It's not like a bandwagon is roaring right now to lynch you. I asked a simple question for clarification because otherwise, you look like a lead I have on scum right now. But I'm just one person.

Your reactions are making you look more and more scummy here, and not helping your case. Neither is the OMGUS vote.

As for the timing of your post - I read it. What I'm saying is it conveniently got sandwiched in during that posting spree where people were even saying that there was a lot to read and several people have said they're refusing to read everything MS and I wrote (tl,dr; MS and I have differing opinions on how to open the game), and it could have been coincidence, but dropping 3 FoSes on the three active players at the time is mighty suspect, and that's a good time to put it in when people might not notice it.

[AGar]

I hate quote tags. Attempt #2

I understand that. What I don't understand is why if you felt it was a random vote you mentioned the word OMGUS? Explain that to me, that's what I want to know. Otherwise, right now, it looks like a scumbuddy trying to preemptively answer any questions that might come up about his partner's RVS vote.

OMGUS: "used as a shorthand to indicate that you are voting for someone primarily because they voted for you. . " - Mafiawiki
Random Vote: "initial votes are made with no substantial reasoning offered. These are often referred to as random votes." - Mafiawiki

The vote was in retaliation to someone else who voted for him. What else would you call it? The other votes were just random votes which is what I called it.

You seem to be missing the point. It was an OMGUS vote. But you can't have a random vote and an OMGUS vote in the same vote, which is what you're trying to do. You brought up that DP might be OMGUS-ing, but you more think he's random voting. WHY bring up the OMGUS? No one else had so much as mentioned it beyond the RVS, it wasn't something being used against DP. It looks to me like you're trying to buddy up to him by preemptively clearing him of OMGUSing, because otherwise there is no reason to bring up OMGUS.

As for the timing of your post - I read it. What I'm saying is it conveniently got sandwiched in during that posting spree where people were even saying that there was a lot to read and several people have said

they're refusing to read everything MS and I wrote

(tl,dr; MS and I have differing opinions on how to open the game), and it could have been coincidence, but dropping 3 FoSes on the three active players at the time is mighty suspect, and that's a good time to put it in when people might not notice it.

This means that they are going to ignore you, not me. And your whole argument about where I posted is completely asinine. So far you hijacked the thread, vote hop, pointed the most fingers, used worthless arguments like, "your post was in a bad position" and made claims like I never said that... oh wait... yes I did, makes me think you have acted the scummiest out of everyone here so far.

In case you haven't read the thread in full (which it strikes me as you didn't) I have admitted that in the moment of that argument, I thought MS was scum for what we were arguing about. When I think someone is scum, I pressure them until they break. In regards to vote-hopping, I random voted DavidParker, called out AWA for being scummy, found MS scummier, stayed on that vote for a while, then when I re-read my argument and realized it wasn't part of the game, I retracted and moved to who I found the scummiest (being you). Pointing the most fingers, I've casted 3 serious votes, and brought up suspicion of DavidParker. That might be the most out of anyone, but I'm hardly calling out everyone, and at least I've been willing to fully commit to my suspicions, not hand out worthless FoSes when I have no vote on anyone. Would you rather I tunneled in on players so I miss how scummy you and your partners are? And I'm not using your post timing as my sole reason to suspect you, l have plenty of others too. Like the mis-representations and false claims. Where have I made claims like "I never said that... oh wait... yes I did"? I just iso'd myself to be sure, and I don't see it at all.

[AGar]

You seem to be missing the point. It was an OMGUS vote. But you can't have a random vote and an OMGUS vote in the same vote, which is what you're trying to do. You brought up that DP might be OMGUS-ing, but you more think he's random voting. WHY bring up the OMGUS? No one else had so much as mentioned it beyond the RVS, it wasn't something being used against DP. It looks to me like you're trying to buddy up to him by preemptively clearing him of OMGUSing, because otherwise there is no reason to bring up OMGUS.

Feel free to correct me, but from my understanding an OMGUS vote that early on is a random vote, not a serious vote. Since I was analyzing everyone else I figured I might as well tack an analysis on him. Two types of votes - random and serious, this was random. And who needs to buddy up to clear a vote in the beggining? And is OMGUS voting something that needs clearing up? Seems like you are grasping at straws.

OMGUS. Oh My God U Suck. It's a reactionary vote to a player who has voted for you. It is a way of voting without really putting a reason behind it, but it is anything but random. Null tell on it's own, but sometimes players are attacked for it. No one needs a buddy to clear up a vote, but the idea that you DID clear it as random strikes me as peculiar, because the only person who even mentioned OMGUS was me in a joke post after DP had posted his vote.

In case you haven't read the thread in full (which it strikes me as you didn't) I have admitted that in the moment of that argument, I thought MS was scum for what we were arguing about. When I think someone is scum, I pressure them until they break. In regards to vote-hopping, I random voted DavidParker, called out AWA for being scummy, found MS scummier, stayed on that vote for a while, then when I re-read my argument and realized it wasn't part of the game, I retracted and moved to who I found the scummiest (being you). Pointing the most fingers, I've casted 3 serious votes, and brought up suspicion of DavidParker. That might be the most out of anyone, but I'm hardly calling out everyone, and at least I've been willing to fully commit to my suspicions, not hand out worthless FoSes when I have no vote on anyone. Would you rather I tunneled in on players so I miss how scummy you and your partners are? And I'm not using your post timing as my sole reason to suspect you, l have plenty of others too. Like the mis-representations and false claims. Where have I made claims like "I never said that... oh wait... yes I did"? I just iso'd myself to be sure, and I don't see it at all.

Instead of typing a paragraph I am going to use bullets to get my point across in a more concise manner.
1.) Like I have said already, I thought you were supposed to use FOSs until you were certain and FOSs were saved for the beggining when you are not sure. Clearly I was mistaken and now I am voting.
2.) Not sure what you mean by tunneling - care to explain?
3.) Using a post time at all is worthless
4.) What does it mean to iso yourself?
5.) To respond to your last question allow me to answer with a few quotes from you.

Wait what? Where did I call bandwagons a scummy move? I said AWA's hesitation about bandwagons was scummy.

Ah ok. Yes, this did transpire.

1) To me, FOSing is all but worthless if you have no vote cast. It means you aren't willing to commit to anything, regardless of what the stakes are. It screams "I'm going to fence-sit right now and not be bold!"
2) Tunneling - focusing in only one player and ignoring the rest of the actions of the town while you poke and prod at them.
3) No it really isn't. It can be a decent scum tactic if done right because it can cause a post to be lost between the cracks.
4) Isoing is looking at all of one players posts alone. There's a dropdown menu at the bottom of the page that allows you to select a player and see all of that individual's posts without anyone else's interfering.
5) You really should keep quotes in context when you try and build a case, because what you've done is completely misrepresent the conversation. I never backtracked on a single word in that transcription. Here it is in full (each post is it's own quote because I can't embed quote pyramids beyond 5 posts and this takes more. I edited posts down to only the parts that pertain to this conversation (took out quotes and parts directed at other people):

Post #56:

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

Wasn't addressed at me, I didn't put too much thought into it, just made mental notes of where screl stood.

Post #61

A) Bandwagons aren't scummy.
B) Bullocks about appeasing AGar, I voted AWA because he's scum.
C) You agree the question is irrelevant but want to discuss it, that makes no sense.
D) No history why do you ask?
E) This game has had truck loads of scummyness already.

Point A is the most important part of this, because it starts the confusion on my end later down the road.

Post #62

A.) I agree - AGar was calling it a scummy move
B.) That is just what it looks like to me
C.) Was just curious if you didn't like him from some past game or something and that is why you joined that bandwagon
E.) Agreed

Again, look at A. It goes from "bandwagons aren't scummy" to "I agree - AGar was calling it a scummy move" At this point, I am confused, because I do not recall saying bandwagons were scummy, instead the exact opposite.

Post #63

Wait what? Where did I call bandwagons a scummy move? I said AWA's hesitation about bandwagons was scummy.

I had quoted the exchange between TBM and screl and snipped all but #62's point A in the quote, because that was what I needed to address.

Post #69

You were not calling all bandwagons scummy, but you did say, “I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.” Again, alcohol and distractions got in the way.

I was trying to say that you (Agar) were calling Button’s bandwagon views scummy

, right after this happened Button unvoted, voted for AWA who you (Agar) had just voted for.

This was his response, clarifying. I just realized that I misread this, inserting AWA instead of Button in the bolded line (emphasis is mine). I never actually said Button's bandwagon views were scummy, I never even addressed TBM prior to my run in with MichelSableheart; instead I had said that AWA was. I must have spotted AWA's name in the line already (eyes drawn to capital letters) and had placed it there. Either way, I thought I had this clarified, and I understood what he was trying to portray.

Post #70

Ah ok. Yes, this did transpire.

I follow the quotes up with this, meaning to say "Yes, I did find AWA's bandwagon views scummy."

So don't try and misrepresent the conversation.

For the record, this is the last time I will explain anything for you. If you don't know the definition of something, use the wiki to find it. There are newbie games for a reason, and they have an IC whose purpose is to educate you on terminology and practices of the site. If other players wish to assist you, that's their call, but if you just want to jump in, don't expect everything to be taught to you.

@Copper - I'm going to assume we've played together. Would love to find out the heads of the hydra whenever you feel comfortable revealing them, if that point ever comes (honestly no idea at the moment). I don't think I've been more vote happy in this game than any others I've played in the past. The big difference may be that I partook in the RVS this game, which is something I don't usually do, but I was honestly too lazy to formulate 11 questions that I would be able to benefit from information wise.

After the incident between MS and myself, I did reconsider a vote on AWA. I also checked and saw he was on V/LA, and that his stance on bandwagons was likely a null-tell. Between those two factors, I decided that my time would be better suited pursuing screl, who had given an opportunity for me to push and prod at him with his 3 FoS post and his general attitude and actions like the clearing of DP's RVS vote.

---

I've noticed something about DavidParker's votes.

Vote #1: AGar. Post #21. Post #20 was my RVS vote on him.
Vote #2: MichelSableheart. Post #48. Post #44 was my vote on MichelSableheart in the heat of our argument.
Vote #3: Screl1. Post #73. Post #60 was MichelSableheart asking why Screl had FoSed the three active players in the game.
Vote #4: Merlin. Post #117. Post #116 was MichelSableheart's vote on Merlin.

Aside from his first vote on me, all of his votes have followed either someone else casting the vote, or someone else calling that player out. We have yet to see him go on his own on anything. His one post of content, Post #93 shows him echoing opinions given by other players in the game save for his remark about TBM. No, the remark about AWA doesn't count for anything in my eyes, as he simply re-hashed AWA's posts and gave no input on them. It had been echoed by several people about mine and MS's argument being useless, and MS had said Copper's post was good. The idea about Screl's 3 FoS post had already been brought up as suspicious.

DP - Start playing the game seriously, and start posting thoughts of your own to some extent. I want to know your top two suspects, and why, and hopefully see at least 1 (if not more) reason that isn't a re-hash of what someone else has said.

---

Merlin (promised activity 12 hours ago. I'll give him another 4 before I begin to feel like he isn't coming back) is lurking, but so is MME (who came in, dropped a vote on DP without full explanation, and left on Wednesday. It is now Saturday.), and Guthrie (who got to the edge of his prod as well, then promised activity - This was on Tuesday, 3 days 12 hours ago).

IdiotKing is being replaced.

TBM is just shy of 72 hours out of the thread (60) and he has simply posted one-liners, and hasn't actually followed through on most of what he has said (things like there being truckloads of scumminess in the game: I would like to see him point it out).

Interestingly, TBM and MME votes are sitting on DP... Hmm. Makes me think.

[AGar]

EBWOP:

The end of the last part should also include in a bit to MS - I don't think that Merlin is the appropriate lurker to target in this scenario, if you want to target lurkers, there are better choices.

Also, I'm going to avoid any further WOTs from here out. That one was a lot of thoughts that came to mind as I was gleaning the thread for the conversation between myself and screl.

[AGar]

Hey Equinox.

[AGar]

Noting to all games I will not be here tomorrow for 4th of July. Will be back Monday.

[AGar]

TBM's oneliners have been extremely game relevant, and brought up points that noone else mentioned. I don't think that accussating him of lurking makes any sense. As he said before, conciseness is pro-town.

This part bugs me a bit. Not that I find TBM all that scummy, but you're making it out to sound like he's doing more than he actually is.

Quick PBPA:
#1 - Confirmation
#2 - Random Vote
#3 - Confirming that his Random Vote is to cause a bandwagon
#4 - Switches to AWA for AWA's unvote.
#5 - Deflects AWA's question
#6 - Response to screl's analysis.
#7 - Says conciseness is protown
#8 - Calls out MME for not posting.
#9 - Switches vote to DP, says DP is scummy, but so is AWA
#10 - Further building against DP
#11 - Sarcasm towards DP
#12 - Asks Copper about heads of hydra
#13 - Re-iterates conciseness is protown, replies why his vote is on DP to me.

I'll get to the conciseness = pro-town in a second, but I don't see a lot of points that we would have missed in the game had he not posted. Maybe I wouldn't have gone after DP for his actions, but that's about it.

Now, about this whole conciseness is pro-town argument. First of all, DP and AWA... you guys are boneheads. However, TBM is taking this to the complete other end of the spectrum. Conciseness is very much pro-town. Getting your point across in as few words as possible allows for less chances to muddy the waters and gives scum less opportunities to either break your argument or hide their argument's flaws. Walls of text can often lead to confusion and easy ways for scum to get by because of the amount of material needed to cover. However, TBM's posts are beyond concise. There is a difference between getting your point across in a few words and not posting enough to actually get a point across. If you think a few paragraphs is too much to get a point across, then you're stretching your argument.

[AGar]

Merlin requesting replacement makes my suspicion unfounded.

Unvote

Regarding TBM: I found all of the following game relevant, original content.

#4 - Switches to AWA for AWA's unvote.
#7 - Says conciseness is protown
#8 - Calls out MME for not posting.
#9 - Switches vote to DP, says DP is scummy, but so is AWA
#13 - Re-iterates conciseness is protown, replies why his vote is on DP to me.

He builds a good case on AWA (appearant when he votes, explained when he votes DP). He builds a good case on DP (both his vote and latest post). He is the first to point out that we were getting into WoT's too much. He is the first to point out MME's inactivity (note that MME replies rather quickly).

Sure, he would be easier to follow if he explained a bit more, but most of the time, I can follow his thought process.

Ok, fair enough. I would really like to see these replacements soon...

Also I'm not liking the fact that Screl has fallen silent after I countered his argument.

Copper - may I ask at least how many heads we are dealing with?

[AGar]

Also I'm not liking the fact that Screl has fallen silent after I countered his argument.

Miss a day for the 4th, logged in last night and saw 3 of promises for long posts from inactives plus another one this morning. Figured I might as well wait for those before I post.

Fair enough.

---

AWA, your analysis is flattering. Really.

Honestly, I can't take you seriously when your first analysis is of a joke I made, thinking I honestly meant it to be a scumtell. The second post you analyze was simply fishing for a reaction from you. Your view on bandwagons only sees the negative, so any points made in this post's analysis are null to me. Analysis of post #44 starts off fairly accurate, except I didn't retroactively say that because DP OMGUS'd, my vote was justified. No where. I admitted multiple times that my vote was simply random on him. Then it falls on its face when you get to point 4. The next 5 or 6 is simply over-analysis of an argument that was rooted in theory discussion, and is unnecessary if you're trying to find anything. It's been beaten down a thousand times - I was wrong in arguing the point to the extent that I did, as was Michel. It wasn't game relevant, though we both seem to have thought so at the time. About this pointing fingers at 4 people. Let me check here - I random voted DP. Then I voted you, mostly to gauge reactions (yes, I masked my reason at the time, but if I said "I'm voting you to see how you react, then you simply forge a reaction, nullifying the purpose of the vote). I switched to MS who, in the heat of the argument, I thought was acting scummy. Finally I have moved to screl, who I actually would like to see lynched at this point in time.

You then make a list. I'm trying not to have a conniption here.

Again, you have gone after 4 of the 5 other players who have maintained some level of activity. FOSing 2, voting 1 and IGMEOYing (which is basically a weak FoS) on 1.

You didn't FoS everyone active, Screl did. I still have an odd feeling about the 2 FoS/1 vote/1 IGMEOY, but not like I did when I confused you.

Oh, and about your question, I think it is slightly scummy for you to be worried about a potential mislynch because it's something that even as a townie, you know it is likely to happen. Townies die by mislynch, that's one way to figure out who scum are (who hopped on the bandwagon at opportune times, who seemed to know too much about the townie's alignment).

---

TBM - good points about DP.

Also, I don't like his #141

Point 1 seems to know too much. Point 2 is null. Point 3 is a re-hash of something you've already said. Point 4 is... like Point 1, it seems like you're hinting at something, like you know too much.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: DavidParker

At this point, Screl is still a bit scummy, but DavidParker is really setting off the sirens.

[AGar]

Sorry for the absence, I intended to get one good post in each game daily, it didn't happen with this one and I apologize. Some of this will be stream-of-consciousness, I hope you can all follow.

I don't like how screl has been on his heels for the most part lately. He seems to content on just deflecting the attacks and doing nothing else.

@Copper - I am disappointed. So far you had been doing such a good job, no mistakes. Alas I guess all good things must come to an end. I am still pondering your logic to see if I agree with it. Regardless of the outcome of that little debate, you need to check your facts before you start voting. My post very clearly states that I voted for MME first.

Your vote comes from the logic that I took a safe vote by following MS, since this did not happen your logic is flawed.

No. His logic still stands since it wasn't based on a single fact.

DP's 172 is a textbook definition of non-committal. Also, he's basically saying "Let players active lurk." I had to do a double take.

If MME shows the activity he's saying he will, I like his posts so far.

AWA's #177 - Odd. Says he is third most suspicious of DP, which could be moving towards accusing him of being scummy, but then hesitates to vote, citing a possible mislynch? Confusing me, I don't know if it's deliberate, but it contradicts itself.

Screl is scummy, but a lot of his stuff can be chalked up to null-tells because of his experience - I can't completely ignore the newbie card here. Still keeping a close eye on him, and still suspicious of him, but not as intensely suspicious as earlier.

DP is scummier, and he's just making it easy. He says he doesn't want to vote a lurker until the absolute last minute, and says active lurking is ok. Could an active lurker maybe be his scumbuddy?

Where is remus?

AWA confuses me, still don't know what to make of him.

While we have 8 days, a DP lynch would be a fine occurrence whenever.

[AGar]

screl, get in here and bus your partner already.

[AGar]

... 5 minutes to get to the I-cant-type-properly-because-I-drank-too-much stage? Lightweight.

@screl - you're admitting to bussing then?

[AGar]

@Mod: Is your previous votecount correct? Specifically, votes for My Milked Eek.

It should be.

[AGar]

Why do you feel the need to stall until the deadline? Chauchau can't find replacements, and it's unlikely that she's going to find both in 4 days and that they will be fully caught up.

Your stalling reeks of major hesitation to bus your partner.

[AGar]

Well, I'm the cop, don't know my sanity, but I was trying to "town follow" as you described it because I didn't want to seem too pro-town and end up getting killed on one of the first few nights.. That's why I haven't tried to push anything apart from screl who has been obviously scummy (to me at least)

...


...


...

/facepalm

[AGar]

One last thing, AGar - you have been harping on me for not dropping the hammer as of yet, but you have failed to mention anything about AWA taking the same stance, why is that?

Because I'm not going to repeat the same point twice. I figure AWA is intelligent enough to understand that if I'm unhappy with one person for action A, I'm probably unhappy with another for action A as well.

Besides, I get a scummier read from you, so I'd much rather see you hammer your partner (I don't believe DP's claim).

[AGar]

Woo Sotty! Oi there!

And DP - the meta alone is enough, whether you say you're serious or not. You said the same thing last time. Also, ACM isn't in this game. Why should I feel that this time is any different?

[AGar]

Oh wow, I somehow got ACM and TBM mixed up. They seem so similar.

So you still haven't said why this claim is any different from the previous. Also, stop talking about 974. Still ongoing. My mistake for even bringing it up.

[AGar]

Heya, Sotty7!

I'd like to think that DavidParker learned his lesson that time...

My mistake for even bringing it up.

965's over, isn't it? That's what I thought you two were referring to.

965 is over. 974 is not.

[AGar]

The only difference in DP's claim here is that it wasn't rage induced, which is how his last claim came out - in a fit of rage against the players there. I'm not sure if that really means much. Fact is, he falseclaimed cop as a VT, insisted he wasn't lying, lived through the first night, claimed to have a result and then backpedaled into saying he had been roleblocked, and we were forced to policy lynch him on D2.

I don't buy it, but there's no sense in forcing the issue of a lynch. Screl looked pretty scummy in his repeated insistence to wait for replacements and basically giving DP the time to fabricate a false-claim.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Screl1

[AGar]

I was reading through and I noticed something that struck me as odd. Equinox voted for DP to put him at L-3. Then he says, "don't drop the hammer until we've heard and discussed DP's claim." DP makes cop claim and without discussion Equinox apparently believes DP before there was even a chance for a counter claim, and votes for me. Possible connection between these two? Also is Equinox defending DP in post # 226? Seems very odd that one would vote for someone and then turn to defending them so quickly.

Your OMGUS does not impress me.

We're not likely to lynch a player claiming a PR on Day 1 unless it's really unbelievable. Most people will shift to their second suspect almost instantaneously. Also, show this defending?

[AGar]

Hmmm... well this is interesting, I was waiting for AGar to vote for me to post this and it looks like I didn't need to wait very long. AGar and Equinox both used the argument that I should not wait to vote for DP because the inactives would not be replaced, that my not voting was actually me not wanting to bus a scum buddy. AGar decided to attack only me when others were taking my position. Keep in mind that I have been the second most likely to be lynched as of yet. Then they both jump to voting for me without questioning DP's claim. Then AGar says that he doesn't buy DP's claim but changes his vote to me. Seems like this could be an attempt to start a new bandwagon to protect a scum buddy.

Lol wut?

I decided to attack you only when others were taking your position? I'm pretty sure I attacked you when I re-read you and DP in iso at the suggestion of MME. I questioned DP's claim right off the bat. I don't buy it. But I pointed out that we're not going to lynch a player claiming a PR on Day 1. This is not one of the scenarios where it is appropriate to do so, so I switched my vote to the next scummiest player.

Keep flailing.

[AGar]

I severely dislike screl's "Now that DP is out of harm's way, I will vote him," vote. I still think both are scum.

I'd like to point out the irony of #259 - One of screl's points against DP is that DP is re-hashing cases that other people have used. Screl's entire case is a re-hash.

I also don't like Michel's #263. He's been keen on continuing to push for DP's lynch after the claim. I understand that he doesn't believe the claim. I don't either at this point. But it's not like we don't have any other options, and quite frankly, my hesitance of DP's claim stems more from past experience with him. While I find him scummy, I don't find that to hold any bearing on whether or not I'm in belief of the claim. I'm still not sure what to make of him though. Ugh.

[AGar]

I'd like to point out the irony of #259 - One of screl's points against DP is that DP is re-hashing cases that other people have used. Screl's entire case is a re-hash.

I said that it would be a rehash before I wrote that. I have been coming up with original content and working to create conversation.

I was pointing out that any argument DP was using had already been used by someone else.

Where?

And I said this to someone in one of my last few games too (can't remember which, they blur together after a while): In most cases, you can't say person A is scummy for action X and then commit action X, but say you aren't scummy for it. This is one of those "most cases."

Just because you SAY it's a rehash of other cases (which I fail to see) doesn't mean that you're clear to use that and then accuse another player of being scummy for re-hashing other players cases.

[AGar]

I am going to have to say that posting a big case in an attempt to kill a claimed PR (ON DAY 1 !?!?!?) is nonsensical behaviour and definitely scummy. He based it entirely on meta saying that I'm more likely VT or scum than cop... Based on one completed game where I claimed cop.. Hint: That was my first game here Michel.. If you want I can link you to my previous games played on a different site, where I have claimed a PR almost EVERY game I was a VT. My meta has changed to accommodate to playing games on this site.

Vote: Michel

We know you're claiming to be the cop. Stop town-following, scum.

[AGar]

Where are you Screl? Claim, you are at L-1 and will probably be lynched.

no he's not. now stop rolefishing!

So, trying to buy your partner more time to fabricate a false-claim?

It's currently 5 AM PST on the 17th. That means roughly 2 days and 17 hours until deadline. At this point, people need to start taking action if they want to change things.

screl needs to come in here and make his false-claim.

I'm wholly satisfied with a lynch of screl today, and I don't see many other satiable options. MS bandwagon is just not my thing. I don't like lynching players who are likely just anti-town.

Also, people need to stop playing the newb card for screl. Two reasons: 1) I have yet to see him play it in his defense. 2) He could be completely faking his newb-ness. No one knows. By repeatedly playing the newb-card, you basically make it so he isn't held accountable for any of his actions.

[AGar]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that David is scum. Hammer without a claim? Riiight.

RTFT?

[AGar]

I would have expected more from buttonmen given the amount of rereading he said he'd done.

Why? He's taken conciseness to a whole new level so far in this game.

Let's see how screl flips.

[AGar]

Mod is PST. It's just getting to be 7 AM there.

Give it time.

[AGar]

Mmm. Equinox death is unsurprising. DP, come in here and lie about something so we can lýnch you.

In other news, I'm in the hospital, so posting from me is limited to my phone.

[AGar]

Umm.... just a question:

Has anyone considered the possibility DP not being a sane cop? ANYONE?

I really don't like how many people took DP's result as the complete truth and just jumped onto the bandwagon.

Every case I see now on Michel is pure confirmation bias.

I'm withholding my vote until Michel comes up with some sort of explanation.

Also, don_johnson's 338 is off. Very off.

VOTE: AWA

For being consistently hesitant and non-committal without good reasons to be. His disposition against bandwagons reeks of scum trying to avoid being on mislynches, and his wanting to wait on voting Michel has nothing to do with the potential sanity of DP, but rather the fact that he find it suspicious that DP got a guilty on a player who was against him. If DP just lied about a guilty, you ever think that that might be a 1-for-1 type deal?

[AGar]

Mmm. I'm not saying lynching Michel is the wrong play. I just don't like how everyone's been feeding out of DP's hand. Everyone was just willing to pile on votes until Michel wound up dead. Don_Johnson's #355 is a prime example. His is the most troubling, because he is essentially goading AWA to hammer Michel before many people have posted and before Michel gets in here and is given any chance to explain this. I don't think DP's FoS on AWA is about his reluctance to hammer, but rather his very weird "5% and 3% scum reads on DP and MS."

Otherwise, carry on.

I'm interested to see what Copper has to say about this, and more interested in what MS is going to offer up. Buddies, maybe?

[AGar]

I think chances are I'm more likely a sane cop than a non-sane cop, and I'm aware if it turns out I'm not a sane-cop it's probably my head tomorrow, but hopefully I can get a useful result tonight as well.

Regardless, we don't know until he flips, and sadly, even then, it's not 100% assured. We know you're not naive, but hopefully you aren't random or paranoid, so your result tomorrow can be at least somewhat useful.

I may have a plan for us if Michel doesn't flip scum. Gotta go over the logistics a few more times.

[AGar]

AWA's OMGUS continues.

Also, DJ - it seemed like you were trying to get AWA to vote Michel, which would have been the hammer. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

[AGar]

AWA's OMGUS continues.

Counterargument ≠ OMGUS. Kindly stop asserting things that are not true.

Really? Because the only fingers you point (if FoSing can be called that) are at people who seem to suspect you. So I don't think I'm asserting anything that isn't true.

[AGar]

Oh and DJ - About your 338 - I don't like the whole congratulating the town part of it.

[AGar]

AWA's OMGUS continues.

Counterargument ≠ OMGUS. Kindly stop asserting things that are not true.

Really? Because the only fingers you point (if FoSing can be called that) are at people who seem to suspect you. So I don't think I'm asserting anything that isn't true.

Correlation does not imply causation. Does it not seem natural that I would counter a clearly flawed argument? Your illogical and fallacious pressing of the matter is quite scummy indeed.

How is it "illogical and fallacious" that I have pointed out that every player who has suspected you, you have turned around and pointed a finger at?

That, by definition, is OMGUS.

[AGar]

@MOD: screl is uh... screl is dead lol.

Oh snap! GG. This is why we don't do drugs kids.

MS's defense reeks of projection, and also feels a bit like a bit of an attempt to scare the town out of lynching him with an underhanded threat of "You're going to burn a mislynch on me and he's scum."

I'd like to see some of the other players at least react to MS's response.

[AGar]

AWA - Or, you're an idiot. OMGUS is not just a vote. The meta has evolved past that, you can OMGUS without a vote, and it can be masked.

[AGar]

Unfortunately for Michel, I just don't see a logical reason not to go ahead with this lynch. I simply have to concur with DP, Oso, nopoint, and don's collective sentiments that I prefer to see the end of the day right now. The worst case scenario that I could possibly imagine is that DP isn't who he says he is, and he merely lucked out on not having anyone to counter-claim him. Even if Michel were to claim a power role at this juncture, would it really change anyone's mind? The town has the maneuverability to be a little more aggressive, so why not rationally use that aggression on the uncounterclaimed Cop's guilty investigation?

I agree we can use the aggression, and Michel is the best choice today. Sole reason for holding off hammering at this point is MME said he wanted to post tomorrow during the day (well, later today now). I'd at least like to hear his thoughts.

[AGar]

awesome. results please. hopefully we have three confirmed townies for today.

Three? Oh wait.. I'm assuming you mean DP as confirmed as well. D'oh.

Who here has played with masons before? Stupid question, but I haven't, so I'm not sure what the best move is here.

Should they just come forward and expose themselves? I mean, assuming DP provides an innocent, and there's no counter-claim (which I doubt will happen only because mafia would be ending it for themselves with that), we have 3 confirmed townies, and mafia only has one NK.

Quick math shows we

should

be at 7:1 in terms of mafia:town ratio. No second killing party has surfaced, so I'm assuming no SK. 3 confirmed townies would up our odds of hitting scum (if we were to lynch randomly) today to 20% from 12.5%, and tomorrow to 33% (16.6% without any confirmed townies).

Yeah, after I think about it, I like the idea of the remaining mason coming forward.

[AGar]

I am not a mason.

[AGar]

why are we outing the mason now? it seems to me that the only benefit is to scum. but whateverz. i am not the mason. i think it would have been better play to just go ahead with the day first. we don't even have dp's results yet.

I find this post interesting, considering it's conflicting with your first post of the day where you said you hoped we had three confirmed townies. The only way that could have happened is if David gave an innocent and a remaining mason claimed.

Also, interesting thought - DP's roleblocked claim doesn't make sense because a night kill went through. We haven't had a third party show up yet, unless scum + third party sent for the same kill N1. But I just don't think that's the case. If there is a roleblocker, for the purposes of a tracker/watcher possibility, they should only be able to kill or roleblock. Most non-newbie games function like this.

VOTE: DavidParker

[AGar]

EBWOP: I find the likelihood of a 4 man scumteam very low, for the record.

[AGar]

AWA, hammer. If anything, his self-vote was probably a gambit, methinks.

Copper - Nopoint has a point (irony). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at a player's posting history and then take a stab at the 50/50 shot.

[AGar]

Wait I was a doc?!?

LOOOOOOL.

GG guys. Just think Buttons - YOU cost us a real perfect game Jk jk.

Copper was the best we had for the town, imo. I'm still not sure why he never bit a NK.

I think this was the best game I've seen a town play. No mislynches, that was pretty good.

AWA, I still don't agree with your playstyle, but I had a feeling after some point that it was town on town. *shrug*

DP - selling innocents would've at least kept me off of your back for one more day. MS should've just bussed screl hard, although DP selling him out really made no difference, but if DP hadn't come in with that guilty, I dunno that I would've have been so curious of MS had he just bussed screl and left DP's claim alone.

[AGar]

Also, great job Chauchau Liked the game a lot.

[AGar]

I'd really like to hear DP's thoughts and reasonings now lol.