Mini 1009 ÔÇô Popularity mafia (Game over - Mafia wins)

[Simenon]

Vote mothrax

for equivocating.

[Simenon]

This is the type of thing, had I heard it about someone else, I would think the two were mafia partners.

What do you mean?

[Simenon]

I am not going to post for the sake of it. It's not my policy, and I have no intention to make it mine. If you have a question, ask, but otherwise I'll comment when I think it's appropriate.

Then you ask a short question for me, I don't understand why you would ask me that question.

It's hard to believe that you don't see the advantage in asking instead of telling. If I point out the flaw in your post, it conditions your response.

The only reason I can see to ask that question is for you to further provoke the comment so you can entice me to argue that me or mothrax should be targets

The purpose was to provoke further comment. I want information out of you. Your policy of staying out of the fray is unproductive at best, but I think you've convinced me that it's more than that. At the very least, it would help to knock you out of your self-made perch.

So, if you are genuinely a townsperson, you shouldn't have trouble answering this: what aspect of my comment didn't you understand?

It wasn't clear to me which two players you were referring to.
Your post was essentially arguing that, if you weren't town, those posts would be scummy. It's a useless and silly point to make. What exactly were you trying to accomplish?

My philosophy is that mafia players can't fake sincerity like the real town people are. Even if they are really experienced, they won't be able to fake suspecting people and analyzing people the same way a genuine townsperson would. And the reason I am telling you, and everyone this, is because I want the mafia to be intimidated. The more intimidated you are, they more likely I'll find that fakeness that envelopes the mafia and I'll catch it.

I'm not buying any of this. The verbosity, the rhetoric, it all sounds pretty fake.

[Simenon]

By the way, BB, you apparently had no problem with this:

@scotmany12: care to elaborate?

[Simenon]

First off, when did I ever say that my policy is to stay out of the fray?

Second off, what are you referring to when you referenchnig a "self-made perch"?

Both reference:

I'll let you kids figure out the random voting, and when things come up that I find odd, then a vote shall be cast by me .

I agree with Korts that this suggests a detached approach.

My post does not say "if I weren't town, those posts would be scummy" it says, if I weren't ME and I didn't know my own alignment, that post would be summy.

The difference accounts for nothing. Both statements are terrible in the same way.

This is my philosophy.

I'm saying this philosophy is vacuous. Obviously the scum need to be intimidated; obviously their behavior will be different from that of the town's. You might as well say that catching scum is your philosophy.
I think that paragraph was an excuse to reassert your supposedly town role. You've implied your alignment in many of your posts, but to no avail. If this is offensive, then I'm sorry.

Unvote

I haven't read the rest of the thread; I'll vote again when I get the chance.

[Simenon]

Cuetlachtli's first post seemed reasonable to me, Ecto. Just because he believed the RVS to be effective doesn't mean its content required his immediate comment.

Iron Man is so unwilling to vote. Look at his "retracted FoS," and his "worthy of my vote" warning. This caution bothers me.
Also notice how he sticks a condition in this post to avoid commitment:

Your first vote seems to me that it's targeting someone that is at least a little unpopular, possiible distancing

but I may be looking too hard at that one.

He uses a similar tone later:

Okay, I'll take your word on your intention to prod BB, but I'm starting to get a picture here that maybe BB and mothrax keep defending eachother because they are getting attacked together. It's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you keep saying that there is a connection, then a connection will begin to form. Granted, I could be completely backwards on this, and you could be correct that they are, in fact, scum partners, but this is just some food for thought.

Equivocal, cautious tone. Iron Man is clearly not new; why isn't he sticking to his convictions?

Vote Iron Man

You think I should keep my thoughts and feelings to myself?

Yes, if they aren't useful. There is no way in any context a comment like that could be helpful or convincing.

(I realize this is not how most people play, I have gotten in a heated debate about it before on another online mafia game, but it's what works best for me, as my personal belief is that mafia try to look for small "mistakes" or fishy actions that townies make, and capitalize on those mistakes by attempting to use logic).

This is what I disagree with. I think most players analyze sincerity.

[Simenon]

I don't like Cuet's or Iron Man's method of kicking off the game. Blackberry's post was an excellent game starter, these two commented about RVS and its usefulness, but neither actually tried to apply that to this game. ie, No Scum Hunting. Cuet's is the worse of the two because he actually says that Scum slips occur in the RVS, but apparently doesn't consider applying it to the game?

I don't think your framing this right. I think on the third post of a game, a player is entitled to both agree that the RVS is useful and not immediately begin analysis (although given your lengthy first post your might disagree with this).
That being said, Cuet is flailing badly.

Since when was a conservative play-style a scumtell?

I think it's a pretty reliable scum tell.

By this logic, a confident, self-righteous fool has a less chance of being scum than a mildly cautious player.

Indeed.

IMO, at this point in the game, there aren't many convictions to stick to.

Townies are more selective when there is less information. They have an interest in focusing the town, picking up on the small tells dropped inadvertently in the early stages of the game.
Scum, on the other hand, want to throw shit around and see if it sticks. They'll have less discernment, so long as they can press

something

.
By setting conditions on your own views, you enable yourself to see if your argument will take hold before you indicate your own involvement. That's the problem.

[Simenon]

So you're saying chill, not everybody comes out the gates ready to go?

I'm saying nobody should be expected to.
As for my views on Iron Man, I don't see the connection.

Define flailing and elaborate on why you think I am doing it.

Flailing: defending yourself with disproportionate emotion and verbiage. Statements like "OMG your Crap-Logic is nauseating" and your repeated use of "unfair" seem desperate. That post is too long.

[Simenon]

Sorry to hear that, Ecto.

It looks like you mostly have a problem with my play-style. I will continue to incorporate sarcastic verbiage in my walls of text. That said, allow me to reiterate one of my points in a concise manner.


In my first post, I took a stance on RVS and gave a reason on how it could be useful. My intent was to persuade other players to participate in RVS if they were on the fence after BB's comments.

Ecto then began to criticize my play. His expectation was for me to act upon my reason for advocating RVS. In other words, he wanted me to identify scum slips made during RVS, regardless if scum slips were made or not! Do you see how this is illogical and thus, an unfair expectation for me?

You've made this clear in four sentences, so I'm not sure why so much was required before.
Your initial response to Ecto was also concise (although difficult for me to understand). Why did you resort to a "wall of text" later on?

My reasoning for this is that he always is trying to justify and make himslef clear.

Not sure what this is trying to prove.

[Simenon]

EBWODP: Five sentences. I'm referring to the last two portions of that post.

[Simenon]

Limited Access indefinitely (hopefully until tomorrow)

[Simenon]

Access back.

It's kind of hilarious how BB keeps repeating this phrase:

A genuine town player

as though using the word "town" as much as possible in a sentence could actually influence anyone's opinion of him (apart from the obvious No True Scotsman argument).
BB has consistently padded his arguments with this kind of drivel. Take this comment from post 123:

* I think the stance that the mafia can not genuinely look for scum the same way town do IS true. You disagree with that? When did I say two people think exactly alike? I find your bolded comment offensive, because you assume incorrect ideas. I am a very open-minded individual and am well aware that no two people play alike, regardless: mafia can not fake the sincere scumhunting that a real townsperson has. I don't see how you could think that stance is wrong.

Bits like "I am a very open-minded individual" accomplish nothing except frame the debate in terms of personal insult. Had the purpose of this comment been to refute Korts' point, he could have done so in one sentence, not five. If you remove the empty rhetoric from the post, you're not left with much.
~
I eagerly await the above promised analysis. I wouldn't mind a lurker wagon if those promises aren't fulfilled.

[Simenon]

content

[Simenon]

* How you are attacking my post makes me think you're trying to look for small things to use as evidence (something mafia would do- when a townsperson looks at things, they usually point out what they see right away, what you are pointing out are very minor things that one would have to read and used twisted words to make it look like you have a point).

You're doing it again. That impulse to over-explain, with statements like "this is something mafia would do," or "this is my mafia philosophy," is still cheap and insecure padding. It allows you to take an authoritative tone, without having to make reasonable arguments. You're incorrect to say I'm "pointing out very minor things," since this is an issue in almost every post you've made.
Point specifically to a comment that you believe has been "twisted."

* I don't use the phrase genuine town to make people think I am town. I use it because I am trying to spread my theory around. The word genuine has more to do with emotion and feeling. That is my point of using that word.

So you claim.

* The "I am a very open-minded individual" comment was for the purpose of expressing that I was offended by being called otherwise.

Exactly.

* I like to post a lot because I am not afraid to express what is on my mind.

This is not an issue of post count. I don't care how much you post, so long as you say something meaningful.

I think people that type short things and sum things up in one sentence are typically people who are mafia and afraid that if they express themselves too much something will stick out.

Please don't express yourself. Emotion is easily contrived, and even worse, it's an excuse to justify bad arguments. I would like every town player to "sum things up in one sentence." Why is it so much trouble to be precise?
Of course, if you are scum, it will be much easier for you to go on posting like this, and then accuse anyone who brings it up of "not expressing themselves."
The conditions you provided on your support of the Thief wagon have been noted.
~

I will give details upon request.

Request.

[Simenon]

Please don't express yourself, [Blackberry]. Emotion is easily contrived, and even worse, it's an excuse to justify bad arguments. I would like every town player to "sum things up in one sentence." Why is it so much trouble to be precise?

BB's emotions and "drivel", as you call it in another post, helped me to get a read on him, and might help others to get a read on him. I don't see how you're justified in restricting BB's self-expression, when it potentially helps other players, and is nowhere near such a quantity as to hinder the gameflow.

If he proves to be scum, I do think it has been enormously helpful. But if he is town, I can't see how his playstyle has been anything but a distraction.

[Simenon]

I don't mind verbosity or post length, but I would like highly concentrated arguments.

[Simenon]

Vote count (12 players alive = 7 to lynch before deadline)

(2)

Thief

- eljcko, Blackberry
(2)

mothrax

- scotmany12, ChannelDelibird
(2)

drmyshottyizsik

- mothrax, Korts
(1)

Blackberry

– drmyshottyizsik
(1) Iron Man – Simenon
(1)

Korts

- Thief

Bolded are those regularly producing content.
This game is lagging. We need a wagon on someone quiet.

[Simenon]

These statements are very telling to me about you as a person. You come off to me as someone who is very close-minded to how mafia should be played and what should be done.

I know a couple ways it shouldn't be played. Please prove me wrong.
However, I can separate your playstyle from your actual comments, which to my mind have been consistently scummy (if you want me to re-state examples, I can do so).
The "close-minded" accusation is pretty rich coming from someone who said:

I think people that type short things and sum things up in one sentence are typically people who are mafia and afraid that if they express themselves too much something will stick out.

I agree with this. This game seems to have lagged quite a bit.

Who would you suggest?

[Simenon]

How shouldn't it be played? How can I prove you wrong? If I can correctly identify one or two mafia members via my method before I die will that prove you wrong? (I'll make a big bold post saying that this person is my guess based on my method)

I know that you're trying to show I have a simplistic attitude towards the game, but obviously there is more than one way for a playstyle to be successful. Provoking content, for example, or analyzing lynches effectively.

[Simenon]

Also, I'm not finding the theory discussion between BB and Sim to be necessary at all.

It's pretty boring, but he's asking the questions. Also,

nobody else is talking.

[Simenon]

What you call "soft-selling" was a mixed opinion on a player. I certainly was floating the possibility of your wagon, but I can't see how this in itself was scummy. I've stated my argument about the overreaction post already; you can respond to that if you have an issue with it.
Are you "soft-selling" scotmany, BB, mothrax and me in post 174?
Also, there are only two scum in this game (it's an open setup). I find BB and mothrax to be an unlikely scumpair, since they had drawn undue attention to themselves, something which doesn't have much benefit on page 2.

In fact, he has even parroted some of the arguments for these wagons. In ISO's 0 and 1, he paraphrases Ecto's argument against BB and Monthrax. While in ISO's 4 and 7, he soft-sells an Iron Man, Thief, and Cuet lynch

This is a good point, although I still don't like the term "soft-selling." It does seem as if Korts would like to be on any wagon that will stick.

[Simenon]

The "Soft-Selling" charge is still bullshit. Most people understand what is meant by "flailing", but since you asked for details,

I provided them.

That should have ended the conversation, and apparently it was enough to satisfy you at the time. Your"addendum" takes that discussion entirely out of context, again implies that there are three scum (not true), and is generally a perfect example of critical reading failure.
I don't see an issue with either of your examples, unless Billy is arrogant enough to assume anyone suspicious of him must be scum.

Sim says that my play thus far had been justified, but contradicts himself by saying that I was "flailing badly."

I never said that your "play thus far has been justified," or anything like it. That's a terrible misreading. I thought that your first post was reasonable. That's it.

Nit-picks sarcastic remarks I made to Ecto. Claims "[my] post [was] too long." This looks like Sim is feigning ignorance. Like since the post was too long, he didn't read the details clearly.

Feigning ignorance of what? This does not make sense.
I didn't care about the details of your argument, since I agreed with them already. I cared about the details of your diction and your tone, which were way off.

Sim continues to feign ignorance. Attempts to suggest that the use of a "wall of text" is bad.

Another awful misreading. The point was that your post was superfluous (since you seemed to have managed to explain yourself in five sentences later), histrionic, and obviously contrived. I'm not sure where you're getting these interpretations from.

Sim is understandably concerned about his scumbuddy.

Well, since we're not being generous anymore, it is pretty stupid to say "I'll provide details upon request" and then not expect a request. Especially if the game is lagging. Especially if you are using terms that are meaningless to justify your post.

Distances from Korts at the end. Presumably dislikes the term "soft-selling" because it could tie him to Korts if Korts is lynched and flips scum.

How could a "term" tie me to another player? Why would I distance myself from Korts before your lynch, if the point of "soft-selling" was to lynch you? And why would I have distanced from Korts half a page after "protecting" him, in your words?

As far as post 174 goes, I guess I don't grasp the difference between terms like "flailing" and "soft-selling." As far as I'm concerned, my analysis is as valid as yours (or even more so, since mine is correct and yours isn't.)

[Simenon]

I'll get to the other stuff tomorrow, but part of the definition of "mountainous mini" is the 2:10 ratio. Whenever I see the word "mountainous" associated with mini normals, that is immediately what comes to mind, and I'm sure many other players here think the same.

[Simenon]

Lurker wagon = lifelong contentment

Unvote
Vote CDB

Anybody who isn't voting or has their vote on a dead end ought to reconsider.
The 2:10 ratio was the reason I joined this game. Don't tell me there wasn't sufficient notice.

If you agree with my argument, then you should agree with my diction and tone, or at least not have issue with it. Wouldn't you act the same way if someone used Crap-Logic™ on you?

Also, earlier you claimed to have had trouble understanding both of the posts in question (Cuet ISO 1 & 2). Yet NOW you understand my arguments and agree with them?

Scum make good arguments all the time. What is important to me is

how

the argument is made. Your post was awkward when it shouldn't have been, and that's it.
Also, I think I later noted that while I understood your points, I couldn't digest your original post.

My point was that only you and Scoty requested more details. Coincidentally, both of you soft-sold my lynch earler.

Yet they have nothing to do with each other!

Your attempt to soft-sell my lynch failed since nobody jumped on that wagon, therefore you are moving to distance yourself from Korts, who I implicated as your scumbuddy.

1. It was a weak soft-sell then, seeing as the line before it I dismissed the most persuasive argument against you.
2. Again, why would I have distanced myself from Korts half a page after trying to protect him (as you have alleged)?

Its cuz you never explained WHY you thought I was flailing at the time, thus you were soft-selling my lynch, seeing if anybody would buy the straw that you were reaching for.

This would be a valid argument if I hadn't provided details in the next post.

At this point, I'd be willing to lynch Simenon or Thief, because I'm having a really hard time getting any read at all on either of them.

uh

I mean, if someone says something seemingly indefensible that could be a scum slip, then I would urge all the people to stop what they are doing and give their judgment on that person's alignment.

How often is this supposed to happen?

On posting scum reads: This should be a last resort for injecting life into a game. At this stage, with three new perspectives, I don't think it's necessary. As scotmany said, it reveals too much for the scum without enough benefit. It also gives scum a chance to waffle safely. If you suspect someone, just say it, don't format it into a list.

[Simenon]

Did it ever occur to anybody that he could be both scum and drunk?

[Simenon]

lurker wagon = lifelong contentment

[Simenon]

That drunk posts confirms Blackberry as town by the way.

There's no such thing as creative scum.

Complete crap.

[Simenon]

On day 1, it is difficult to differentiate scummy actions from personality-based actions. For eg., some people are arguing that Cuet's reaction to Ecto was over-emotional, but such overreactions could simply be a part of his playstyle. Over-defensiveness, bad logic, inactivity, emotional appeals... such stuff, which people normally call scumtells on d1, are often merely personality quirks.

If that's the case, then I don't know what isn't a personality quirk.
Is your inability to read me a personality quirk?
Is my inability to be read a personality quirk?

[Simenon]

Limited Access until Monday (the 9th). Might be able to get online tomorrow night.

[Simenon]

Access is spotty for me. I continue to support the CDB lynch. given that we have no other viable option, and I'd rather not repeat Day 1's lurkfest.

[Simenon]

I really don't like this wagon. I'm usually always for a Lynch the Lurker philosophy, but in this instance the posts CDB has made ring town for me.

Would you prefer not to lynch? Deadline is in two hours.

[Simenon]

Rereading; will have results in a few hours.

Any reason you pushed the notion that it was either lynch CDB or nothing? Because mothrax could've been lynched with one vote move. Thoughts on that slot?

I didn't read the deadline rules. I assumed it was either a majority or no lynch.

[Simenon]

Tazaro doesn't do much before joining the CDB wagon. He posts no notes upon replacing into the game; instead, he defends mothrax and drmy (and later Korashk) on the basis of meta, saying "Alignment has a chance to be more in view later." That's a nice evasion. It allows for the possibility of those wagons later on, yet also lets him seem cautious and responsible.
Later, he buys into the BB's drunk posting, yet also equivocates ("alcohol can be a truth serum." Can be?)
The only other argument from him is for the CDB wagon, as far as I can tell.
Also, his demand a post by cuet because he's "good on content" is unconvincing.

Vote Tazaro

Other possibilities include BB, from yesterday.

[Simenon]

@Simenon:

What is your opinion on Tazaro's assumption that cuet got night 1 immunity? Do you think such an assumption is more likely to come from a townie or a mafia perspective? For eg., do you think something like he discussed it with his partner or something?

I don't think it means anything. It seems like an excuse to demand material from Cuet.

Also, what is your opinion on Ironman (who was Tazaro's predecessor)?

Read through yesterday. I didn't think highly of Ironman.

I have trouble grasping why you suspect BB. Can you lay it out?

This also something that could be easily found through a read.
I think BB was taking an insincere tone, overly qualifying his statements, and that some of his reasoning was painfully off, particularly concerning mothrax. You can read those posts if you want specifics. Since I'm not pushing BB, I don't see any reason for me to do so.

Also, what do you think about BB's towntells?

I don't see that as a town tell.

[Simenon]

I was thinking that saying something is null get rid of that something as a tool that can be used to cast suspicion on a person that a mafia member wants to cast suspicion on.

1. Sometimes it's a good strategy for scum to defend townies.
2. If this were to become the meta, then it would benefit Cuet to violate the meta (this isn't WIFOM, in case anybody is wondering).

Re the CDB wagon: I agree with ZONEACE's points, but wagoning a lurker was the right policy for the town at that point. Deli even promised a post after the wagon had formed, but never delivered. We needed a disincentive for lurking.

[Simenon]

Why isn't Tazaro dead? Existential questions for a new tomorrow.

[Simenon]

No vig in this game.
How many games are you playing Taz?

[Simenon]

Don't see any innocent explanation for why this:

(4) mothrax – ZONEACE, Tazaro, scotmany12, Thief

collapsed in half a page. Especially since Tazaro was on that wagon.

[Simenon]

(4) mothrax – ZONEACE, Tazaro, scotmany12, Thief

So people here actually believe that this was a natural, wholesome wagon?
I don't.
I'm going to stick to these three. From what I recall, ZONEACE's switch seemed the most natural, and his argument for lynching Taz was the most original (meaning that it wasn't pilfered from nopoint or me). That leaves scotmany and Thief. I'll reread both tomorrow, but I am also suspicious of the speed at which Thief's wagon has developed. He seems like today's mothrax.

[Simenon]

Why do you think the scums all jumped on this wagon again?

1. Built quickly, suggesting urgency.
2. Died quickly, suggesting urgency.
Reading the game with the knowledge of mothrax's alignment, it becomes clear that the wagon was inflated. The other scum was afraid that a Tazaro lynch would make anyone on the mothrax wagon look toxic, so he quickly switched to Tazaro, speeding up the lynch.

[Simenon]

Was busy tonight. Post tomorrow.

[Simenon]

Is nobody going to mention that tumescence has sat out on every important argument in this game? Including the only lynch on scum? And has yet to provide a single substantive reason for my lynch, thus allowing him to sit out on day three as well?

As far as the switchers:
I keep WIfOMing myself when I read Thief. Sure, he voted Iron Man yet later claimed it was a test, and sure he's backed wagons on mothrax (town), Korts (town), Blackberry and Zoneace, who are polar opposites in the thread.
But could any scum player seriously be that oblivious? It would reveal, among other things, no coordination among the two scum, and a complete lack of self-awareness.
But I do want to see what a bandwagon on Thief would produce.

Vote Thief

scotmany is another choice. Scot backed the mothrax wagon until the last hours of day two, before suddenly switching to the Tazaro wagon:

He hasn't done anything protown, and right now he is deliberately hurting the town with his fluff posts rather than providing something helpful.

This quote sets up a reason for scotmany to switch wagons without having to admit that Tazaro was scummier than mothrax.

Re Cuet: I agree with nopoint that his post was out of character, but I just can't imagine him being scum anyway. And his reasons for voting mothrax were reasonable.
I wouldn't mind voting tumescence once he fails to find any material.

[Simenon]

I'll be back to respond to Cuet soon. Just want to add that I do think this is a 3 scum Set-up because of the Night Immunity voting skills that we have.

The 2:10 ratio is usually considered unbalanced in favor of the scum, though.

[Simenon]

I don't want to lynch yet.
Theif: You've been called out for bandwagon hopping a few times, and I don't think you've denied that. Could you explain why?

[Simenon]

I am aware of the theory.

Vote: mothrax

high timed I joined this wagon.

^This implies that the wagon was more than an exercise. Yet, you prevented yourself from joining the wagon until then. Why?
The same applies for Cuet and Blackberry (second time).

Given that I've been called "Simeneon," "Simeon," and "Simone," in this game, I don't think anybody else is entitled to protest.

[Simenon]

Even a bit ironic, considering Simenon had himself said something like "Did it ever occur to anybody that he could be both scum and drunk?" (Could be?)

uh, that question was rhetorical.
My stance was clear: alcohol has no bearing on a person's alignment. Point out the fence sitting.

But perhaps more importantly, although Tazaro was unclear on whether drunkenness always leads to sincerity, is that really important? Tazaro hadn't equivocated on whether Blackberry was scum! He had said just 2 posts previously: "I [am] willing to believe the intellectual honesty of the drunken mind displayed there."

He posted that before anybody challenged him!
The equivocation happened

after

he took a stance (obviously). In the post you've quoted, he definitively says BB is town. Later, he says we should wait until he sobers up, then he could be town, because alcohol *can be* a truth serum. How is that not an equivocation?

So: during the course of this game, Simenon has lynched a lurker, got into a few theoretical tussles, was on a scum lynch that he didn't really propel, and is currently fence-sitting on the Thief lynch. Nothing scummy, I'll admit, but as I said, I don't expect him to scumslip.

I don't see why you would try to undermine your own case like this. The only rational explanation is that you knew it would be weak, and were trying to lower expectations.
Also, how is it fair that I've "lynched a lurker" all by my onesies, but get no credit for the Taz lynch? All I did on Day Two was back the Taz lynch! mothrax hasn't interested me since my first vote.
I'll give you Thief. I don't have a clear picture of his alignment yet. I'm waiting to see how he responds to my questions.
And I don't remember "FoSing" Iron Man. I have a policy against FoSes, but I'll let you prove me wrong on that one.

[Simenon]

There's still this:

original "slip" it should read. Obviously the set-up was open and not a slip.

The REAL slip is the fact that Cuetlachi did not himself know it was a mountainous set-up as should be quite obvious from his town role PM if he got one.

It's not.
It *would* be obvious from the Mafia PM, since that would list the number of scumbuddies (it's also obvious from the thread and Jo's other posts, but that's not what Thief is referencing).
I realize this was already covered, but Thief responded that he "misread the role PM," when there wasn't anything to misread.

[Simenon]

Moreover, even if you believe that drunkenness has no bearing on alignment, you could have still mentioned whether you believed BB was being sincere. You didn't.

Why should I have? What difference would it have made? The dominant opinion in the thread was that Blackberry had to be town. That assumption had to be corrected. I was arguing against that opinion, not for a Blackberry lynch.

Right, but it's just as easy to read Tazaro's overall opinion as such: "

At times

, alcohol is a truth serum. In this particular case, I believe BB is being sincere."

Yes, that was Taz's first opinion. He backed down. Hence the vote.

Would you prefer "supported a lurker lynch?" And I've already explained why I'm not giving you credit for the Taz lynch; it's because I think you put your vote there for show, with the hope that Mothrax would be the day's lynch.

Even if I didn't steer the Taz wagon (I disagree with that assumption), I supported it as much as I supported the CDB wagon. Both were the right play. So yes, a change in your rhetoric is appropriate.

It seems as though Taz was TRYING to get lynched. Why do this unless your scum buddy is bussing you and you want to insure that he gets the most town cred possible. Well, ironically Nopoint got the most town cred from that lynch. At least he did to me.

Yes, he was so cunning that he revealed his cunning plan in his death post. That's a brilliant theory.

Sim didn't have an opinion about it while everyone else besides BB and Nopoint, implored me to unvote.

I assumed you were fishing for reactions; pointing that out would have undermined your gambit.

[Simenon]

If I had believed you were serious, I would have said, "Cuet's self-vote is phenomenally stupid and we should lynch him." I'm waiting for the reveal.

[Simenon]

Also, it must be convenient for the other goon to push the wagons on the two players responsible for his buddy's lynch.

[Simenon]

Also,

if a 3-way LYLO is imminent, DO NOT nominate someone to get "night immunity" the NIGHT BEFORE LYLO for WIFOM's sake.

If the scum no kills during the night and a majority of the townies give the scum "immunity," I don't want the scum to win based on a false assumption by the town.

Well there you have it...

What? More players > fewer players. I don't think anybody is suggesting we clear a person through kill immunity.

[Simenon]

If the scum no kills during the night and a majority of the townies give the scum "immunity," I don't want the scum to win based on a false assumption by the town.

???

Vote count Day 4

(7 players alive = 4 to lynch before deadline)

Not voting: Blackberry, Cuethlachtli, nopointinactingup, scotmany12, Simenon, tumescence, ZONEACE

Deadline Day 4 is October 9

[Simenon]

Why claim protections if the scum can "win based on a false assumption"?

[Simenon]

More tomorrow, but I agree with ZONEACE that wagoning is a better use of our time.

[Simenon]

ZONE makes a good point with the Thief bussing. I'd also add that Thief and BB ignored each other throughout Day 3. It's as though BB urged Thief to stick by him after the Taz lynch. Since Thief was such wagon-hopper, it'd strange he zeroed in on ZONEACE yesterday, unless it was because BB asked him to.
I still have my concerns from Day 1, so BB scum would make perfect sense to me. If I have time, I'll make a case.

Vote Blackberry

Re Cuet: It's true that I was equivocating over the Thief wagon, but my qualms were genuine, and I don't think the comparison to mothrax was unreasonable (though wrong).

[Simenon]

Would anybody like to quote these "obvtown" posts by BlackBerry? I can't find any.

@Simenon, you don't see how revealing our nominations gives us a likely town?

Don't see the point in having one.

[Simenon]

Post 446
^Thief comments on every player except BB and tum. Don't you find it strange that the post after voting BB, he would post an analysis skipping him entirely?

[Simenon]

I'm amazed somebody going 0/2 on scum lynches has the chutzpah to declare BB completely town.

[Simenon]

Not changing my mind. Somebody kill Blackberry please.

[Simenon]

That kill was a mistake.
Scotmany, who's scum?

[Simenon]

I've eliminated nopoint for the interaction on 358. Not only would he have bussed twice, but he would have set up the bus early. He also tied tumescence to Thief, which would be a fine tactic were he suspicious of tum today, which he is not.
I'm not sure about the others. Tum had the least reason to kill Cuet, since he could have set up a perfect end-game with him and me, but he's seems to have tried to coast to that situation for the past three days. I've seen ZONE as town all game, but I'll need to reevaluate that. Scotmany is a blur.

[Simenon]

Let's claim protections today. I'm more interested in the choosers than the choice. Majority votes are no guarantee of alignment.
Mine were (in order):
ZONEACE
NoPoint
ZONEACE
NoPoint

[Simenon]

Busy week. Substantial post coming on the weekend.

[Simenon]

Post was hastily written and may contain embarrassing grammatical errors.
Let's go through the list
I can't buy a ZONEACE wagon because of his switch on Day 2. He could have ridden the mothrax wagon off the cliff, but he chose to back Taz instead. Besides, nothing in his posts has seemed unreasonable or awkward. Town read + town action = townie. That being said, I just finished a game where a similarly hyperactive player bumped off his buddies.

I can't buy a nopoint wagon because of the reasons I previously stated. He did have the best reason not to kill on night three, but the worst reason to kill Cuet. It left him without any ammo for today. The only plausible target for him left is Tumescence, but he's shown reluctance for that wagon too.

Removing those two, tumescence and scotmany are left.
I think Tumescence's play is useless. He's been wrong all game. Yet his play does not reflect the scum's approach in this game. As I said before, tumescence should be coasting to endgame, not avoiding a kill and then killing the most likely lynch candidate.

Finally, there is scotmany. His play is consistent with the scum's approach. He's suddenly hammered two or three scum (unsure about Thief), he is vague about his positions, and the only lynch candidate he ever strongly pursued was mothrax. Killing Cuet makes sense; Cuet was probably the only player among us who would raise questions about scot, and the kill leaves any player open, including tumescence, whose lynch he has backed. He also mildly defended Thief earlier in the game (I can quote the post if necessary).

One thing is certain: this game has stalled. And that's not an accident. Scum wanted us to be without a plausible lynch today. It makes his endgame easier. If anything, that's an invitation to pick up the pace.
V/LA until Wednesday morning.

[Simenon]

I'm not really sure what to think about tum's sudden change of heart, other than I don't like it at all. Why can't we assume the mafia no-killed? Especially if the mafia is ZONEACE, who would be expecting the kill. It's weird you place more value in that one night action than the past four days of posts.

[Simenon]

This is fun!

[Simenon]

Scumhunting by process of elimination is lynching the person with the least towntells. It does not mean that anyone with a towntell on him is townie.

Sounds completely useless, which isn't surprising considering how useless your approach has been this game.

As I've previously stated, this could easily be early ineffectual distancing that inadvertently turned into a bus.

It couldn't unless you have evidence to support this claim.

For a no-kill to have any benefit, you'd have to wager that you would be the most nominated person at night, and in addition to that, you would then likely have tried to out the nominations the next day, which you showed no inclination of doing.

-The scum could have missed his kill
-It could be beneficial to confirm a consistently wrong townie
-Pseudo-confirmation is a strong benefit for a minor risk. The no kill was not a great boon for the town.

Nopoint:

Scot and Tum

[Simenon]

I've not taken you off my list of suspects, Sim. I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt today.

Let's try to be a bit more subtle when setting up the next lynch.

Vote Tum

[Simenon]

KILL

[Simenon]

okay, 9 minutes left.

Unvote vote scot

tum is by a great magnitude the better lynch, but oh well.

[Simenon]

Nominated ZONEACE.

Vote tum

I think I've made it clear why Zone and Nopoint aren't scum.
As for tum, let's compare our records:
-sim: led a lurker lynch, led a scum lynch, voted for a scum, voted for a townie, voted for tum (not counting the last minute switch)
-tum: voted for sim
Whom would you rather vote for?

[Simenon]

@Simenon: just how bad a mafia do you think I am? I know how to bus, and I would have bussed if I were mafia.

Anyone is free to WIFOM the record, but does anyone really feel comfortable ending this game on the basis of WIFOM? You can check the posts themselves for sincerity. If you are scum (and you are, as far as I'm concerned), you've made it just fine avoiding a bus.

Prod ZONEACE

Done

[Simenon]

No more days, please. Three player endgames are never superior to four player endgames. They're usually worse. The scum will simply kill the least likely townsperson and we'll end up exactly where we started. Let's make a decision today and get on with it.

[Simenon]

Sim, who do you think is the least likely town? And why would you think the scum killing the least likely town would be detrimental to town? Mislynch are harder to cause than Nightkill, thus wouldn't it be worse if we mislynch the "lease likely town"?

Bleh. Meant "most likely town."

[Simenon]

reading up
Nopoint, you never answered me post-correction.
Not lynching will accomplish nothing that lynching could. If there is remotely a dilemma in the town, the scum will kill the least scummy townsperson. If the town has genuine disagreement, scum will simply hold the kill. If not lynching would genuinely increase the odds, why would the scum allow it?

[Simenon]

Perhaps the best point against him is that he has avoided controversy.

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

In retrospect, I agree with him because scum are not likely to speak so loosely, and might actively be trying to hide the fact that they know who is town.

Loose lips are easy to affect.

At the moment, I haven't thought too much about this analysis, so I don't have a comment on its correctness, but it is something that scum could have easily ignored, and the fact that he did it, suggests that he cares about lynching the right person.

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

He attacks BB, votes for Iron Man, and drops that to pursue a lurker lynch. This strikes me as definitely scummy.

Read more closely.
I switched to a lurker wagon so that we could lynch that day. There was no other way.
I like your coin-flipping idea.

Voting for Simenon is taking an unpopular position, I would expect scum to take an easier road.

Why has this not been easy for him? Who's been giving him shit for this, other than me? Scott, but he's dead. Thanks to tum.

[Simenon]

Exactly .. I don't see much reason to disagree with the No Lynch option. That is why I'm baffled that everyone opposed to it. Think about it. If we don't lynch today there will be 3 towns and 1 scum entering the Night. It doesn't matter which person the scum decides to target (WIFOMic), our odds of getting a successful protect shoots way up in comparison with a 2 towns - 1 scum Night. If we mislynch today, VERY LIKELY ODDS ARE we loose and I do not feel like playing with fire.

Don't see how that's useful with no nightkill.

I think avoiding controversy is scummy and that Tums has done it at times.[/quote
Read that wrong, sorry

If he was scum, he could have bussed his partners which would make himself appear more pro-town, and he would have drawn less attention to himself. It was the analysis of the night kill immunity nominations that led him to take his vote off of you, so I don't think the switch was that odd.

Again, that's contrary to fact. Tum went under the radar for a substantial stretch of the game, no matter what you think of his motivations.

Simenon, is your argument that nopoint is town based just on the Cuet night kill?

Partially, yes. He's also said the right things at the right times.

I wouldn't no-kill night 3, but Simenon might have. I think a no-kill night 3 would be terrible, but Simenon might have found it more advantageous than disadvantageous.

Day 4 I gave Simenon the benefit of the doubt. I lynched Scot and hoped the game would end.

But this is now mylo, and the no-kill analysis is too flimsy to be a point in Simenon's favor.

Replace "Simenon" with "tumescence" and the effect is the exact same, so I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

[Simenon]

Exactly .. I don't see much reason to disagree with the No Lynch option. That is why I'm baffled that everyone opposed to it. Think about it. If we don't lynch today there will be 3 towns and 1 scum entering the Night. It doesn't matter which person the scum decides to target (WIFOMic), our odds of getting a successful protect shoots way up in comparison with a 2 towns - 1 scum Night. If we mislynch today, VERY LIKELY ODDS ARE we loose and I do not feel like playing with fire.

Don't see how that's useful with no nightkill.

I think avoiding controversy is scummy and that Tums has done it at times.

Read that wrong, sorry

If he was scum, he could have bussed his partners which would make himself appear more pro-town, and he would have drawn less attention to himself. It was the analysis of the night kill immunity nominations that led him to take his vote off of you, so I don't think the switch was that odd.

Again, that's contrary to fact. Tum went under the radar for a substantial stretch of the game, no matter what you think of his motivations.

Simenon, is your argument that nopoint is town based just on the Cuet night kill?

Partially, yes. He's also said the right things at the right times.

I wouldn't no-kill night 3, but Simenon might have. I think a no-kill night 3 would be terrible, but Simenon might have found it more advantageous than disadvantageous.

Day 4 I gave Simenon the benefit of the doubt. I lynched Scot and hoped the game would end.

But this is now mylo, and the no-kill analysis is too flimsy to be a point in Simenon's favor.

[/quote]
Replace "Simenon" with "tumescence" and the effect is the exact same, so I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

[Simenon]

Protected nopoint.
Lost at the moment because I don't see the advantage either of you could have gained by killing Z.

[Simenon]

FUCK YOU GUYS

[Simenon]

>:[