Mini 1190: Game over

[xvart]

Ugh... quote fail on my first post...

“You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

_{~ Winston Churchill}

I absolutely love this quote. I replaced in for that reason alone. Happy hunting everyone. I'll try to have a post later tonight.

[xvart]

2. Scum or Town, which is more fun?
<snip>
2. There are differences that make each side unique and good.

What kind of answer is this? To the only question that might be somewhat relevant to the game?

Also: I'm a miller.

Empking - have you ever participated in a miller MD thread?

Awful questions they may be, but I still want everyone to answer =p

Why? What purpose does it serve?

Never played with a Miller D1 claim before. However, Empking is probably town by virtue of Captain Corporal being scum.

Is the claim scummy? Is it a town-tell? Is it neutral?CC

could

be idiotic town (but is likely scum).

What is the relationship between Empking and "fluff posting, possibly idiotic town" CC?

SK is definitely over-enthusiastic scum either distancing or being opportunistic (depending on CC-alignment - SleepyKrew is scum both ways).

In the last two quotes of Hoppster he is already backing down off of his CC scum claim, which convienently comes directly after getting some heat.

And the problem I have with Miller being claimed this early is that it can easily cover Emp's tracks upon investigation by a cop. The way people are all agreeing to it could solidifiy his spot in the closing stages. Don't take this as me wanting to get rid of Empking right off the bat but it's certainly something to think about.

I'm actually on the other side of the fence on miller claiming and that it shouldn't be claimed and the miller should just play as town a game as possible to draw the NK; but that is just a differing opinion and I believe I am in the minority here. So you should really only be concerned about Empking's scum level if he does not play a protown game or has scummy motivations behind his behavior. I think this post might just be a scum flag to fall back on in late stages of the game for mislynch fodder (if Empking is town and Toro is scum).

Sleepy: Yea, but a small amount of discussion was made from my awful questions =p

P-EDIT: @Thomith: Well, I decided to put a fun question in. Also, I fail to see the point of this discussion. Scumhunting time.

My problem is always with people who say "look at all the discussion I have generated despite it being scummy/anti-town" especially when there is no analysis accompanying the defense of the discussion generated. What have you learned from the discussion so far? You have said nothing really related to it.

It's not like I'm the only person here who considers this a possibility, and it's not subtle at all I flat-out provided my reasons for thinking. Nice try trying to say I'm subtly trying to plant an idea. Would a vote legitimize my case for you?

When given the slightest amount of pressure your keeping your eye on Empking is now a full blown case? Why are you asking for someone else to provide justification for you to vote on something you don't think is a definitive scumtell? The fact that you still don't have a vote down at this stage in the game and haven't said anything else is highly suspicious.

I'm going to be watching Empking more and more from here on out, I'm not going to place a vote down on him to start a bandwagon as there is a chance still he actually is Miller. I won't make a final decision on what Empking is until I've read him better down the road. As of now I'm going to re-read back through the thread and look at all of the different conflicts going on.

It is scumtalk. Scum do it all the time to fall back on later. The whole "oh yeah remember back on page four when I said such and such... I should have voted back then." And what is the problem with a wagon forming at this point in the game. Early game bandwagons are the best; and how are you so confident that your one vote on Empking would generate a bandwagon, especially since nobody else has been validating your opinion?

I think you're trying to mis-read what I'm saying back there, you're trying to make it look like I'm pushing it as scum, but it is a strong possibility. Why so jumpy?

If it is a strong possibility you should be voting; especially since you have said nothing else about anyone else. This is your biggest lead right now; but again, it comes back to you pushing a "case" on someone you don't want to push on or someone you don't believe will flip scum.

Post 90 - You just named five people that are likely/leaning scum. This is clearly a post that is forced, by showing pbp analysis when it is page four.

Hoppster's push on Elfin and RVS but not reading is scummy.

I'm up to the beginning of page 7 but this wall is long enough. I'll get some more later but my preliminary thoughts are Toro is definitely scum and Hoppster is likely scum.

VOTE: Toro

[xvart]

OMFG SURE WHY NOT >_> No. This day is not going to end so soon, i still want to see more people... mainly the ones who have not posted much....

I want this day to end now; so then we can see who all was delaying the lynch under the guise of "more discussion is good bsns" when Toro flips scum.

I'm really not liking panzer's persistence on Empking's activity level throughout his MS tenure.

I'm much more concerned with the reason he claimed, which is because he knew there is a good chance he could get investigated based on who he is.

This. At the point in the game he asked to be investigated if he survived the lynch he would be a prime investigation target tonight. Townie's don't need to fear being investigated and don't need to ask to be investigated. They should be playing a townie game to begin with and if they get investigated no big deal.

why does it seem no one sees EK's reasoning for the GF and Mislynch thing. Emp is saying that Toro is acting like he wants to mislynch and played like a godfather. imo calling toro out for wanting a mislynch seems a little unfair early Day 1 as toro seems to genuinely think EK is scum. The godfather thing i can semi understand the reasoning behind it as godfathers could say that to get "cleared" by the cop. can there be Jesters in Mini-normals? if so i wouldn't be suprised if one of them was the jester.

Are you scum, too? It seems to me that you are agreeing with the case on Toro but you are not voting (anyone); plus all the jester speculation is a distraction.

And how was it "scummy" discussion? I fail to see that point.

Many times RVQ have questions in it that some players can see as the answers helping scum (not saying that is the case here). RVQ seems to always spiral into how anti-town/scummy the original questions were and with your claim that you were intending to generate discussion and you did generate discussion but had posted no follow up to the discussion that was generated put you doing it in the same realm as the previous examples (scum motivations after the fact).

[xvart]

Hold up, you know that Emp is a miller?

It is not possible for anyone to know that Empking is a miller unless there is a day role cop, so this is just a passive aggressive way to allude to someone being scum.

I understand you're still reading through the game but it didn't take long for me to start pushing the case on Emp what with the complete crap about me being Godfather/scum.

No. You sat on the fence forever about it, saying you didn't want to push on it because it possible he might be telling the truth while still insinuating that he was scum for claiming it. You were softly pushing a case that you didn't really believe but you wanted a fall back plan for later on (i.e. "remember how Empking might be scum? I think he is now" in LYLO situation or where a desperate lynch was needed. And it did take long for the godfather to discussion came around (page 7).

[xvart]

I'm back
So all I've seen is Toto failvoting Elfen (bus?), Toto and Empking yelling at each other, and Toto using terribad logic.

I've never voted Elfen. Do you mean Thomith?

Unvote

Vote: Elfen

Ohaitheremisterscum.

At least he self identified his Thomith vote as failvoting (bus?).

[xvart]

I've claimed multiple times in the thread, go search for it.

Godfather?

[xvart]

Scum?

[xvart]

It

was not

fail voting. Jeez, if I keep having to defend myself this much over small stuff this is going to be a very interesting game.

The point was you were called out for fail voting someone and you said you never voted that person and then asked if he meant another one of your votes, so from the descriptor provided you identified your vote on Thomith. I won't even get into the logistics behind the legitimacy of a vote you don't even remember.

And now using point

b

together with point

c

, we can logically conclude that if Empking is not a Miller, he must be scum.

How? Well, if he's not a Miller, that means he's not being truthful. But we know that townies are truthful. Therefore he is not a townie. Therefore he is scum.

That was easy, wasn't it?

You really needed a spoilered wall post with logical truth table analysis to provide us with this? When exactly start believing that Toro was scum? From my perspective you and him have been dancing around each other all day with respect to your reads on each other.

Toro's logic of "he could be lying" is shitty(as hoppster said) because anyone could be lying. The reason why he claimed was scummy.

Be careful giving Hoppster too much credit since he is likely Toro's buddy.

Scum?

Nope go look again.

If you can't tell from now I really have no intention of going back to look for your claim. I really don't even care what your claim is. If you had legitimately claimed I would have noticed it; and if it is some stenography or cryptology then it is probably a scum breadcrumb in case everything went south.

[xvart]

Relevant.

[xvart]

He's probably stalling to give one of his partners the opportunity to bus/hammer him.

[xvart]

Okay, you're a vig, I don't buy breadcrumbs done over 100 posts into the game cause they seem just thrown together,

alsoVig is a SUPER common fake claim.

It is? Since when? It's a super risky thing to claim and very hard to reproduce long term, unless he is a SK. But, Toro, say there is a RBer and you get blocked tonight while trying to use your vig kill. Do you get it the next night or is it wasted?

The biggest problem I have with the breadcrumbs and the claim is the reluctance to disclose it. Why was such effort put into making us find it? Some Socrates revelation? In my experience, scum are more likely to create such a cryptic breadcrumb because it will most likely be missed and can be used if absolutely necessary. And with such a casual phrase why was it only used after getting pressure? Why not in the first post (i.e. "hi guiz, I bet this will be a very interesting game.")

The other question is why Toro stirred up such a ruckus about Empking being a miller when he could have evaluated that during the night and vigged him based on his formed opinion? What was the point of stirring the pot on a wagon that wasn't fairly definitively not going to go anywhere?

Wtf... I just read the first post.. it has the wincon on it D< Mainly I asked for it cause i have seen when a mod didn't give wincon and to drive out scum, one of the dudes asked for it hoping some one would choke and say they did and all >_> And no, that was not to the wincon thingy

Elfen is town just based on this and regardless no scum would fish for colors and such.

Somebody hasn't been reading my posts.

You're suspicious of me as well, which means you've theoretically been (or perhaps should have been) through my ISO as well.

FoS: xvart

And you point is what? You've been dancing around Toro all day and then you bust out this big post that goes into excessive details that essentially breakdowns to common sense and launch onto the wagon. It really seems to like over justifying joining. If Toro is scum you definitely are. However, you are also scum independent of his scum level due to the dancing and unable to take a stand on the wagon. Even if Toro is not mafia aligned your behavior can be seen as someone weighing in on the wagon with soft support while questioning it along the way; then launching onto it when it seems too good to be true.

Mafia One-Shot Vigilante is a normal role. I think it's safer if we tie Toro to a certain specific target, whether that be himself or a lurker. (I'd prefer it to be himself, seeing as lurkers can be replaced.)

I think I've seen one mafia vig and it was a large them (I think). I highly doubt there is a mafia one shot vig in a mini normal all things considered. And the directing a vig kill to a single person is highly scummy due to the influence scum have in the night actions.

Despite what I said after the first quote based on the way the breadcrumbs were laid and the way it was revealed I still think Toro is scum. However, I'm willing to see the night action resolutions and I think I see some pro-town benefits of leaving him alive regardless of his alignment.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Hoppster

[xvart]

It seems like a pretty good question to ask the moderator.

[xvart]

Actually wait. Don't answer that in thread but if you are town it would be best for only you to know.

[xvart]

What don't you understand about 'you haven't been reading my posts'?

For town, that's a pretty clear signal that you need to read my posts and stop being such an idiot.

Just saying I'm an idiot because I'm not reading your posts is not helpful; and when you don't try and explain how I am misinformed or explain your behavior and instead just post your ISO is scummy. On the other hand, you labeling all your posts with their scummy behavior is helpful.

Finally, what do you mean by "for town." That sounds pretty definitively that you know I am town.

While going through your posts I noticed this:

Are you saying that there is no chance that Thomith is town? Pray, tell us how you know this.

This is pretty interesting in the fact that you are using the scum knowledge tell (scum know who is not scum) only you are using it backwards. You are asking how Toro knows that Thomith is scum; so unless you think Toro is bussing Thomith this isn't even a tell. It's backwards; and if you think he is bussing you should have been voting either of them; but at the time of this post you are voting SleepyKrew while only FoSing Toro. This is exactly what I was talking about with you dancing around Toro. Your voting record doesn't fit with what you are saying above; or, you are throwing around false suspicion in an attempt to appear to be scumhnting but you are not double checking your work (which I believe to be the case).

Whoa,

unvote,Vote:xvart

didn't even notice all that

Everything in Hoppster's post

Notice what? What did he say and what is scummy?

388: @Xvart: can you summarise your case against Hoppster?

Basically, throughout the entire day he has been softly supporting the main wagon (Toro) while softly defending it. Here he gives a big fat FoS (with enlarged font to make sure we all see it) and even indirectly (accidentally?) identifies Toro and Thomith as scum while keeping his vote on SleepyKrew (detailed above). Then he backs off of Toro saying he is arrogant townie. Then says Empking is making him doubt his read. Then he built a massive wall "case" with basic mafia 101 and providing obvious information like "whoever we vote always has a chance of being uninformed majority OR informed minority" (no kidding; what other options are there?) and when speaking about Empking claiming miller he says "well, if he's not a Miller, that means he's not being truthful. But we know that townies are truthful. Therefore he is not a townie. Therefore he is scum" (also no kidding) and demands a claim (also, again, in big letters).

So either Hoppster and Toro are scum together or Hoppster is scum and knows Toro is town and if so he didn't want to be on the Toro lynch until it looked too good to be true and could get on it and not take heat. But since he had been back and forth all day about it he had to build a case to look like he legitimately believes Toro is scum.

Either way, Hoppster is scum. And if he flips scum then panzer has a very high likelihood of being scum with him.

[xvart]

Given the re-explanation I'm not so sure. Just Hopps response seem really good, and I figured you were scum pushing his lynch

I'm going to need more detail than that on what exactly you didn't notice; because in the post to which you are referring Hoppster didn't say anything other than a big collection of his posts.

I'm trying to see if you bother trying to work out what I'm showing you. You're not - you're attitude is clearly "well I don't need to bother trying because he didn't explain", which is either a terrible-town attitude or a scum attitude.

You're obviously not even trying to read what I'm helpfully laying out for you. You're basically just trying to smear me now and you're not even trying to scum-hunt.

This is laughable since you are accusing me of "not trying" and while you do the absolute bare minimum to try and disprove my suspicions.

Are you saying that there is no chance that Thomith is town? Pray, tell us how you know this.

This is pretty interesting in the fact that you are using the scum knowledge tell (scum know who is not scum) only you are using it backwards. You are asking how Toro knows that Thomith is scum; so unless

you think Toro is bussing Thomith

this isn't even a tell. It's backwards; and if you think he is bussing you should have been voting either of them; but at the time of this post you are voting SleepyKrew while only FoSing Toro.

Did I say I was not thinking the bold? No.

You didn't explicity say you think Toro is bussing Thomith; but that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from your statement "are you saying there is no chance that Thomith is town." You are asking Toro how he knows that Thomith is scum with the implication that he has inside information. The only way he would

know

that Thomith is scum is if he is a daycop or they are scum buddies together. Since the first isn't true they would have to be scum buddies together.

I'm not somebody who changes his vote every time he sees what he thinks is a scum-tell, because that would be stupid. You're dropping loads, but SleepyKrew has been taking priority because he is more obvious scum. In this case, I thought it was a scum-tell and thusly pressed (yes, I'm not an idiot,

I did realise it would mean Thormith is scum as well

), but believed SleepyKrew was still likelier scum taking everything into account.

And what's up with the bolded portion of this quote (which directly follows the previous one)? You try and admonish my argument that you didn't say they were scum together but then you admit that you knew that would be the case.

1. Why is changing my mind scummy?
   
2. Why is feeling the need to explore my reads scummy?
   
3. Your third point is simply just wrong in all respects.

1. Changing your mind is not a scumtell; but the degree of your changing read and the pomp and circumstance behind the changes is a scumtell.
   
2. I don't really understand your second point or what you are asking me to respond to, but that could just be because of my poor English comprehension and my failure of basic communication skills; however, if you are asking why it is scummy for you to explore your own reads the answer is simple: there is nothing scummy with someone exploring their own reads. It is scummy the manner in which you have done so and the effort it took for you to actually say what you were trying to say. It looks very strongly like you plopped down a long post of quotes with no explanation at all hoping I would back off just because it was a long post and long posts are always well thought out (although it did work on your buddy Panzer since he hasn't been able to articulate anything surrounding his unvote/vote and what he actually saw).
   
3. I'm sorry you feel that way. Your actions speak differently.

Finally, what do you mean by "for town." That sounds pretty definitively that you know I am town.

Is English your first language? I was going to make a derogatory remark here, but realised that would be rash of me considering you may very well speak Albanian as your first language.

If English is your first language, you're reaaaally stretching here and I assume that native English speakers on this site (probably at least of average intelligence if not above-average) will see this.

The gist is, by saying "for town" I am probably (indeed I am in this context) accusing you of being scum or stupid-town. (You'd have to be stupid-town to attack me without reading my posts, paticularly when I have commented that you need to start reading my posts.)

So what you are saying is anyone with above average intelligence will realize that when you said "for town" you meant "for scum or stupid-town"? That completely undermines your entire ad hominem because what you actually said and what you say you were implying do not align at all. When you said "for town" (referring to me) you were saying "for someone who is town" which looks explicitly like you know I am town. This is the inside information scumtell you incorrectly used earlier.

Either way, Hoppster is scum. And

if he flips scum then panzer has a very high likelihood of being scum with him.

Explain why you think this [the bolded text].

Panzer saw your big spoilered post with no content and no rebuttal or clarification and immediately voted me, with the only explanation "I didn't notice all that". When asked what he didn't notice he said everything in your post and also said later that everything in your response seemed good. What exactly? He can't articulate it because the only thing in your post is you accusing me of not reading and them labeling all of your posts to how they are relevant to each of my accusations. If anything, I would think your post would encourage more people to vote you since there was nothing in the way of defending yourself against the attack.

Plus, he thinks one of us is scum yet he is voting CC for some pretty weak stuff when he thinks he has a 50/50 shot of hitting scum between us. And then he asks SleepyKrew why he isn't voting for you, which doesn't make sense to me since SleepyKrew is not on his scum list and why would Panzer be asking SleepyKrew (who he doesn't think is scum) why SleepyKrew isn't voting someone who Panzer thinks is 50/50 scum when Panzer isn't voting that person either?

[xvart]

This is laughable since you are accusing me of "not trying" and while you do the absolute bare minimum to try and disprove my suspicions.

You're not reading my posts.

Again, you have not explain how I am not reading your posts or why you believe I am not reading your posts. Please do so because just repeating how I am not reading your posts over and over again with no supporting evidence is scummy. After I pushed my case on you did you or did you not make a response post that was labeling my case for me and showing the rest of the players your ISO with which of my case points was relevant to which of your posts? Please explain to us how this is a defense, since it seems quite the opposite (you enhancing my case).

"For town" - the following only applies if you are town (fairly interchangeable with "if you're town")

This seems to be the main thing you're struggling to understand. Imagine an old man saying "For me, playing chess is fun!"

He's not saying playing chess is fun for everybody. He's saying it's fun for him. In other words, it only applies if you are him.

Or a TV advert with Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen saying "For us, L'Oreal is the only hair product we will use!"

They're not saying it's the only hair product that anybody uses, it means that it's the only hair product that they specifically will use. It only applies if you are them. (And then the wannabes out there who want to be just like them will then strive to use only L'Oreal.)

Now imagine an advert starring Homer Simpson, advertising a new DVD boxset. He says "For all true Simpsons fans, there's no superior Christmas present!"

Your examples hold no weight. The point in contention is the proper noun (Homer Simpson, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, or me as the case may be); not what they are saying that follows. In each of your examples, it cannot be argued that when you said "For Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen" you meant for "two people

other than

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen" just like you can't argue that when you said "For town" (for someone who is town) you meant "For someone who is either scum or an idiot." Everything that follows is irrelevant to the argument (whether it be preferred make up, Christmas presents, or enjoyment of chess).

If you were meaning to say "for someone who is likely town" or "someone who might be town" you should have said that because what you said definitively identifies me as town. It's what we call a scumslip since only scum would know definitively that I am town. Furthermore, the fact that you attempted to use examples and logic (incorrectly) further identifies you as scum because you attempting to undermine me (and my methods) and not defending or excusing the behavior. "town" =/= "scum or idiot" in any language, ESL or otherwise. The biggest problem you have with this whole issue is that you can't use the excuse "I was typing too fast and meant 'for someone who is likely town' or 'for someone who might be town'" because you have backed yourself into a corner and neither of those excuses would hold any weight given your expressed suspicion of me.

In fact, I already explained that but of course you didn't read it:

The gist is, by saying "for town" I am probably (indeed I am in this context) accusing you of being scum or stupid-town. (You'd have to be stupid-town to attack me without reading my posts, paticularly when I have commented that you need to start reading my posts.)

I did read it; but all of your "explanations", when finally provided, are not sound and appear to me to be taking posts out of context or out of their timeline. I'll explain in more detail later today.

[xvart]

I'll try and be more concise about my suspicions of you and your interactions with Toro. When his wagon was building (4 votes) you built up a big post and slap down a huge (literally and figuratively) FoS on Toro. It should be noted (detailed below) that this was the first time you started thinking that he might just be "idiot town", but everything in your post suggests otherwise. Then the wagon/pressure died down a little and you slotted him in the arrogant town category, supposedly aligning with your unspoken observation in your first FoS post that we are just supposed to take your word for. Then, when Toro is dancing around the L-1/L-2 threshold you bust out another big post asking Toro to claim with mafia 101 information about how town don't lie.

The whole point is you are on the wagon when it gaining momentum, off the wagon when it is losing momentum, and explain how you were unsure using information that is unconfirmable. For example:

Hoppster - When you finally defended yourself you included this annotation about this post:

It is slightly relevant to [2] because it's when I first began to think that Toro might just be an idiot (expanded on later).

The problem is nothing in your post really suggests that you think Toro might be "an idiot." To me, it looks like a full blown suspicion. You said you expanded on your "idiot suspicion" later but you only expanded on it when you said Toro was "arrogant-and-oh-so-wrong-in-sooooooooooooooooooooooo-many-respects-town". It should also be noted that you are using the "scum or idiot town read" as a scape goat for not voting a little too frequently.

Scum motivated behaviors you have exhibited:

1. Changing reads that coincide with wagon momentum;
   
2. Attacking the attacker and not the attack;
   
3. Justifying actions after the fact with information not available and unprovable;
   
4. Knowing someone's town alignment;
   
5. Directing a possible vig kill to a single individual; and,
   
6. Mismatched suspicions and voting (debatable).

[xvart]

The gist is, by saying "for town" I am probably (indeed I am in this context) accusing you of being scum or stupid-town.

Seriously, this defense against him knowing I'm town is worth lynching alone.

[xvart]

Hoppster is starting to look scum, but i cant get over the town read i got on him from earlier on :\

That's what scum do. They try and trick you into thinking they are town. So I guess what I'm saying is get over it.

Scum motivated behaviors you have exhibited:

1. Changing reads that coincide with wagon momentum;
   
2. Attacking the attacker and not the attack;
   
3. Justifying actions after the fact with information not available and unprovable;
   
4. Knowing someone's town alignment
   ;
   
5. Directing a possible vig kill to a single individual
   ; and,
   
6. Mismatched suspicions and voting (debatable).

I didn't see where he knew someone's alignment
Directing the vig is fine at this point, still saying Toro should vig Jakesh

Directing a vig kill is highly scummy because it is very easily manipulated by scum night actions. I've explained in great detail several times about him "knowing" my alignment. Hell, it isn't even so much that he knows I'm town but his defense of it is super scummy. Be that as it may, do you believe he has exhibited the other behaviors on my list and do you find those behaviors to be indicative of scum?

[xvart]

What's puzzling me here is that your initial case convinced me, but Hoppster's rebuttal seemed clear enough. However, I am now worried that, not having the ability to keep up with your walls (I've been reading them, but it's just hard to follow), I am missing something important on hoppster. It especially concerns me because the sort of tells you are identifying are precisely the type that I consider most important as scumtells.

Sometimes I do get a little verbose and as such lose the focus/clarity of my intent. I'll try and make a quick bullet point list to summarize it all.

I'm trying to see if you bother trying to work out what I'm showing you.

As I have explained, this isn't a sufficient response for me

because

in your original long string of posts when no commentary you labeled it all according to what I was accusing you of. If anything, this should have been proof that I did read what you were saying since everything I was accusing you of was labeled in each of your posts. It took you a while later to actually provide a rebuttal of why my interpretation was wrong.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM ARGUING AT ALL

THAT IS WHAT I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT ARGUING IN THE SLIGHTEST

READ WHAT I'M POSTING

IT IS ENTIRELY RELEVANT TO READ PAST THE "FOR X" PART

No, everything after the "for town" part is irrelevant because that is the only part I was originally arguing: the knowledge of someone's alignment that only scum would know. The behavior afterwards is inconsequential because you identified me as someone who was definitively town in the first two words of your post.

Mafia One-Shot Vigilante is a normal role. I think it's safer if we tie Toro to a certain specific target, whether that be himself or a lurker. (I'd prefer it to be himself, seeing as lurkers can be replaced.)

I think I've seen one mafia vig and it was a large them (I think). I highly doubt there is a mafia one shot vig in a mini normal all things considered. And the directing a vig kill to a single person is highly scummy due to the influence scum have in the night actions.

The only thing that could even be construed as justified suspicion here would be if you believe that I am scum and my faction has a Redirector or Bus Driver, with both being explicity non-Normal.

Or perhaps if I have full setup knowledge and know every single person's role.

A hypothetical scum roleblocker DOES NOT mean directing the vig shot is scummy, AS THEY CAN ROLEBLOCK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SHOT IS DIRECTED OR NOT

AND THEN I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ELSE YOU COULD POSSIBLY THINK IS SCUMMY

You accuse me of not reading because you have a different interpretation of what you said than what you actually said? Where did you say anything about a roleblocker in your first response? This is another example of you justifying something after the fact with evidence that was not originally stated. What you said originally is completely different than your annotations in blue. The whole point is if there is a RBer they know if the single individual set to be killed is on their team or not. When it is not directed, they do not know if the target is going to be their team or not. Even if they don't have a RBer they can influence the kill during the day to someone who is town and say "welp, at least we got rid of a town lurker." Giving scum advanced knowledge of specific night actions only helps scum and not town because they have more information about night actions to begin with.

[xvart]

Scum motivated behaviors you have exhibited:

1. Changing reads that coincide with wagon momentum;
   
2. Attacking the attacker and not the attack;
   
3. Justifying actions after the fact with information not available and unprovable;
   
4. Knowing someone's town alignment[/s];
   
5. Directing a possible vig kill to a single individual; and,
   
6. Mismatched suspicions and voting (debatable).

1. Hoppster admits this is true, although claims it is only coincidence;
   
2. Hoppster admits this as well, although claims it is in tandem with counterarguments (which in some cases it is true, but other cases it is not);
   
3. Regarding justifying actions after the fact Hoppster says this:
   

   What? How is that scum-motivated? Are you saying this couldn't happen to town? I hope this comes back to bite you on the ass as town one day.

   I agree that town does this, but not to the degree you've done it. The saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." The fact that you have done it repeatedly says something about your alignment. Multiple examples will be provided later.
   
4. This has been detailed to great extent, but I'm really less concerned with the original argument of him knowing my alignment and more concerned with the fact that he came back and claimed that when he said "for someone who is town" (or even "for someone whose likely town" if that were the case) he meant "for someone who is scum or idiot town." This is a blaring contridiction and as good of a backpedal as I've ever seen.
   
5. Directing a possible vig kill to a
   single
   individual is scummy despite his arguments to the contrary. As scum, you know if the single target is a part of your faction or not, so you can then allow the kill or not to the best outcome. You would also know your scum partners abilities and if there is a RBer so can make accomodations necessary if you have the ability to do so. If you don't direct it to a single individual then it is a lot more risky/less possible benefit without knowing who the specific target is.

[xvart]

I originally was including the Thomith and Toro being scum buddies exchange but while reviewing the posts and commenting on it I now realize (as much as it pains me to admit it) I did in fact misread one section of one of his posts.

But anyways, back to the others (for ease of reading you only really need to read the red portions and my commentary after each exchange):

Example One

(the most damning due to the blantant contradiction in original post and alleged intention after pressure):

Finally,

what do you mean by "for town."

That sounds pretty definitively that you know I am town.

Is English your first language? I was going to make a derogatory remark here, but realised that would be rash of me considering you may very well speak Albanian as your first language.

If English is your first language, you're reaaaally stretching here and I assume that native English speakers on this site (probably at least of average intelligence if not above-average) will see this.

The gist is,

by saying "for town" I am probably (indeed I am in this context) accusing you of being scum or stupid-town.

(You'd have to be stupid-town to attack me without reading my posts, paticularly when I have commented that you need to start reading my posts.)

When pushed about something hoppster said he comes back with a completely different interpretation than what he actually said. Note that since this defense is weak (unless I am a mind reader for knowing that what he meant was opposite of what he said) the basis of this attack is ad hominem.

Example Two:

I'm going to be watching Empking more and more from here on out, I'm not going to place a vote down on him to start a bandwagon as

there is a chance still he actually is Miller

. I won't make a final decision on what Empking is until I've read him better down the road. As of now I'm going to re-read back through the thread and look at all of the different conflicts going on.

... Come again?

Of course

there's a chance he's town (and therefore a Miller), that's the situation WITH EVERYBODY.

Please... with this logic, you should never ever make a vote apart from a select few scenarios when somebody is confirmed scum.

Hoppster

- First post of his (which includes a CC vote) appears serious, kind of appears as if he's jumping the gun here. (Scum)
- #26: Calls out Sleepy for over-eagerly rushing onto a wagon. Contradiction. Hopp overeagerly started a wagon and pushed for it in RVS. (Scum)

JUDGMENT: Lack of posts doesn't set anything in stone for me yet, but he's leaning scum.

What? How is a serious vote in RVS scummy?

I am also not contradicting myself in

any shape or form

.

Even if I was overeagerly starting a wagon (and I firmly believe I was not), my overeagerness in starting a wagon and Sleepy rushing overeagerly onto a wagon are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not even being hypocritical, if that's what you're driving at. Starting a wagon and rushing onto a wagon are

very different things

.

My wagon was justified, anyhow. Or are you saying this is not the case?

Thomith

- Posting thoughts on game so far. Thru #50. Not really contributing though. (Null)
- Still hasn't contributed anything. #62. (Null-Scum)

JUDGMENT: Is just coasting along echoing others thoughts and hasn't contributed, I think we might have scum here trying to lay low.

---------------------------------

Vote: Thomith

This is actually ridiculous.

Going to refer you back to your logic from avoiding Empking: "I'm not going to place a vote down on him to start a bandwagon as there is a chance still he actually is

Miller

town".

In fact, here's another lovely quote illustrating this:

Because here's the thing, it's not certain that Empking is a miller or not. I don't want to keep my vote on him throughout the whole day phase and potentially mislynch a townie.

Are you saying that there is no chance that Thomith is town? Pray, tell us how you know this.

You have 2 points on Thomith - Null and Null-Scum.

You have 2 Scum points on myself. You have 3 on SleepyKrew.

And yet you vote for Thomith?!

Empking

- Claims miller right off the bat, you all know how I feel about this. (Null)

Yep, that's right, I know you think it's... null? That's not how it looked earlier...

IGMEOY: Empking

^ Ie. MILLER CLAIM TOTALLY NOT NULL

FoS: Toro

[/quote]

^ This is relevant to [1]

because I am making my suspicion of Toro very, very clear

- I'm not 'dancing' around him at all and to say that is just stupid.

It is slightly relevant to [2]

because it's when I first began to think that Toro might just be an idiot

(expanded on later).

[/quote]

Once again, after pressured, he says that he was thinking at the time that Toro "might just be an idiot town" despite there being no indication of him thinking as such in his post.

Example Three:

Mafia One-Shot Vigilante is a normal role. I think it's safer if we tie Toro to a certain specific target, whether that be himself or a lurker. (I'd prefer it to be himself, seeing as lurkers can be replaced.)

I think I've seen one mafia vig and it was a large them (I think). I highly doubt there is a mafia one shot vig in a mini normal all things considered. And the directing a vig kill to a single person is highly scummy due to the influence scum have in the night actions.

The only thing that could even be construed as justified suspicion here would be

if you believe that I am scum and my faction has a Redirector or Bus Driver, with both being explicity non-Normal.

Or perhaps if I have full setup knowledge and know every single person's role.

A hypothetical scum roleblocker DOES NOT mean directing the vig shot is scummy,

AS THEY CAN ROLEBLOCK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SHOT IS DIRECTED OR NOT

AND THEN I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ELSE YOU COULD POSSIBLY THINK IS SCUMMY

You accuse me of not reading because you have a different interpretation of what you said than what you actually said? Where did you say anything about a roleblocker in your first response? This is another example of you justifying something after the fact with evidence that was not originally stated. What you said originally is completely different than your annotations in blue. The whole point is if there is a RBer they know if the single individual set to be killed is on their team or not. When it is not directed, they do not know if the target is going to be their team or not. Even if they don't have a RBer they can influence the kill during the day to someone who is town and say "welp, at least we got rid of a town lurker." Giving scum advanced knowledge of specific night actions only helps scum and not town because they have more information about night actions to begin with.

Note: the blue text by Hoppster was added much later than the initial quote, under the pretense of explaining how I am not reading his post when he is talking about completely different roles in both instances. The blue text came after I refuted his argument by discussing the roleblocker possibility and how that benefits scum knowing who the target is. I'll repeat for emphasis:

Giving scum advanced knowledge of specific night actions only helps scum and not town because they have more information about night actions to begin with.

[xvart]

That was convoluted.

Yes, that is an unfortunate byproduct of using multiple examples of someone's behavior over multiple posts, especially when that person types inside quotes instead of outside them on occasion confusing the chronology even more. However, is it so convoluted that you didn't understand it at all or have absolutely nothing else to say about it? Do you disagree that the highlighted red comments by him are contradictory, changing explanations, or justifying behavior after the fact with thoughts that were not present at the time? My entire point is, from my perspective,

it appears that Hoppster on several occasions when he was put under pressure has changed his story or contradicted himself and excused it by saying "that was what I was thinking at the time even though I didn't say it." As he says, once can be excusable, but three times? All of which come under pressure about something he said?

Isolating out the second example, read his entire post. Is there anything in there that would suggest anything other than a full blown suspicion? Is there anything that makes you think that Hoppster's read includes the possibility of Toro being "idiot town"? That quote is the point where Hoppster allegedly started thinking that Toro might just be "idiot town" as justification against his suspicion level of Toro waxing and waning with Toro's wagon momentum.

Panzer - you certainly haven't done much the last couple of pages to alleviate your connection to Hoppster upon his scum flip.

[xvart]

I'm fine with a lurker vig provided we tie down Toro to a specific shot.

This goes back to the directing vig kill argument. You are fine with a vig shooting

any lurker

but you want it tied down to a specific lurker for what purpose? Why does it matter which lurker he shoots if you are fine with generalized lurker kill?

[xvart]

And who did you consider a lurker at that point in the game?

[xvart]

Despite all the scumtells I believe Hoppster to have committed over the course of the last few RL days Panzer has been giving me scummy vibes with his overall behavior. Nothing concrete but just a little bit here and there. It's a strange dichotomy because ever since I accused Hoppster and Panzer of being scum together Panzer has started behaving differently. I am having contradictory reads because I felt/feel that if Hoppster is scum Panzer must be scum with him; but recently with Panzer's behavior I feel that if Panzer is scum then Hoppster might be town. Coupled with my misread of Hoppsters point that I discussed already I feel that maybe I should back away and look at the forest and not a single tree. I'll give more details on the contradiction later but I need to ask Hoppster a few things prior to doing so.

Hoppster

, putting everything aside for the moment, I would like to know your feelings on the following post:

Panzer - you certainly haven't done much the last couple of pages to alleviate your connection to Hoppster upon his scum flip.

But if he flips town, does that make me more town and you more scum?

You say you are town, so what are your feelings about this post?

[xvart]

Meant to unvote while I look/wait.

UNVOTE:

[xvart]

So no actual answer? Essentially your entire case on me being scum is, "If Hoppster is scum, I'm scum" and now your casting this net of suspicion on me saying I've been acting different and if I'm scum hoppster's town. Is the vice versa true as well or are you just blowing smoke up everyone's ass?

I have an answer for you but, as I said, I'm waiting for Hoppster to respond to my question about your post. As I said the reads are contradictory and it something I'm trying to work out, but I need Hoppster's input first.

Also, I've had suspicion on me for quite a long time(Hi, Sundy), so why would I act differently based on your post that I don't even fully read(I skim them)?

You've had second hand suspicion but not really. You've had I think one vote on you the entire game so don't try and make the level of suspicion more than it actually was. I do have to say though that you seem a little rattled by this turn of events.

While Elf's play was all over the place, it didn't seem all that scum-motivated so much as confused. In addition to that, ISOs 30 and 31 suggest that Elfen knew what the Town win-con was, and ISO 34 suggests that it wasn't from the opening post. While this could no doubt be a ploy, Elfen doesn't honestly seem that.. intricate. A brief meta of his other games helps confirm this. He also links to another site he played on in one of them, confirming that he comes from a mafia metagame far different than the one here. (the game he linked to does not have the town pm in the opening post)

I agree with this. Elfen was obvious town in my opinion, just based on what he tried to do and scum wouldn't do that, especially new scum, unless he was prompted to do it pre game by his partners; but again it seems awfully risky putting the execution of that in Elfen's hands especially when it risks a modkill. Scum wouldn't do that.

[xvart]

Panzer - you certainly haven't done much the last couple of pages to alleviate your connection to Hoppster upon his scum flip.

But if he flips town, does that make me more town and you more scum?

I was hoping Hoppster would have said something about this post but I see we are running out of time so I'll go ahead. First of all, this is a terrible question and reaks of inside information and future day bandwagon development. Regarding the actual question, how am I to know what the town will think of me and you upon Hoppster's flip? As with any day, I'll let then town judge me upon that flip and if Hoppster flipped (and flipped town) they will have to decide if scum would fight tooth and nail for the lynch of someone who flipped town.

I first started to get more concerned with my reads on you two being scum together here with your struck out version of my scumtell list but no real commentary on the rest of the list. It appeared to be a soft weak defense which confused me because I didn't see scum connecting themselves that obviously to a buddy especially after already being accused of being buddies, but it wasn't that substantial or concrete compared to Hoppster so I let it go. Then you later came and told me what I was saying about Hoppster was convoluted and nothing else other than your obvious defense of Hoppster regarding directing vig kills. This sort of commentary adds nothing because you clearly weren't even interested in what I was saying despite engaging in the conversation previously. I even asked you what was convoluted and since I was having strange feelings about your previous post I figured I would see how you reacted to being accused again of being scum with him.

You came back projecting on flips that hadn't occurred setting up a lynch on me and proving your towniness D2. The biggest point is even though you were pretending to be engaged in the Hoppster/xvart debate your only interest was the outcome tomorrow and not the outcome today.

I would be willing to bet that if sleepy flips that Xvart is his buddy.

You really are doing your best to tie down my lynch tomorrow based on whoever flips, aren't you?

I'm much more comfortable with a Panzer lynch today but I also recognize the likelihood of SleepyKrew being scum now that I've stepped back from the game and reread other areas.

SleepyKrew - consider this my intent to hammer so claim.

[xvart]

Oh. I thought he was L-1.

VOTE: SleepyKrew

[xvart]

Seems more like flailing scum trying to link himself to the most suspicious townie. If you're going out, you might as well take on with you. And as scum if you can derail your own wagon, probably a good thing to try.

Or scum trying to buy town cred if I went full monty on you lobbying for votes towards your lynch.

1) Now I understand why hoppster was frustrated with you. You realize that question was in response to you calling me Hoppster's buddy, right? Wouldn't that count as "projecting on flips that hadn't occurred setting up a lynch(in the future)"? I think it most certainly does, and you are far more guilty of it then I am, considering your entire case on me is based on Hoppster being scum(not confirmed) and crap logic. I was simply asking you based on you calling me Hoppsters buddy, if he flipped town, if you would see me as a town defending/in agreement with another townie. This clearly isn't the case since you have composed this whole case casting a fairly large net of suspicion.

The difference between the two (me calling scum based on a scum lynch versus you calling someone scum based on a town flip) is that yours has the worst possible result: two dead townies. Mine has, at worst, the death of one townie. Calling someone scum based on a town flip is exponentially more scummy for that very reason and the fact that it has more inside information than mine (unless I am scum with both of the two I proposed as being scum together).

In the suggestion of two people being scum together (one explicitly because the other flips scum) the best case scenario is we get two dead scum. In the worst case scenario we get one dead townie. In your scenario the best case scenario will yield you one dead townie and one scum while the worst case scenario yields two dead townies. In the event that Hoppster did flip town what would we have lost? One town member and the secondary case I had on you. That's why I wasn't big on pushing you in addition to Hoppster since the only read I had on you at the time was in relationship to him, so I was content to just throw the occasional thing out to you to see how you would respond.

And LOL at the wide net of suspicion comment. If anyone in this game is least guilty of casting wide nets I would say it is me.

2)I was saying that single post, with all the different coloured footnotes was convulted and I couldn't follow it, not the arguement. And I am absolutely for directing the probable lying SK/Scum, was defending Hoppster because I shared the same view he did, and didn't find it scummy. As far as the other striken out stuff, I had nothing to say to the non-striken stuff because i agreed with you, which i explicitely stated in following post.

Just so the record shows you agreed with over half my case on Hoppster.

3) This smells like a bus to you. You've essentially hopped on with out any reasona and just simply said, "I reread some areas" What did you reread? What was so strong that it made you agree with your main target for the entirity of your prescence in the game?

I basically reread the entire game, the cases on SleepyKrew (including Hoppsters). I don't think it will come as a shock to anyone but I was hard core tunneled and as I said needed to step back. Like I said, I would much rather lynch you today but I see the merit of the SleepyKrew case that others have outlined.

Also, my blatant defense of Hoppster directing the vig(that you linked), was just me clairfying what he meant for you. I have supported it on other occasions but that post doesn't mean what you're saying it means.

Why were you clarifying what Hoppster meant to say?

[xvart]

Yes, and I admitted it was the trigger.

The only way I can attempt to explain is through poker. If me and another player are playing heads up, and I have every right to think that I have the better hand and then someone tells me that there is a good chance that he could be a guy who bluffs a lot, I'm gonna call because it will give me information I can use in the future.

I have every reason to think his is scum, but I'm curious to see if this is a meta tell, because it could help me in the future and in the long run, it will make him a better player.

So... No response to my comparison between basing scum reads off of unflipped town reads and basing scum reads off of unflipped scum reads?

overaggressive and erratic

This will be my meta, for both scum and town.
I'm a

2 Shot BP Townie

A 2 shot BP seems strange as a town role if Toro was telling the truth about his role. I suspect SleepyKrew is not telling us the full story. I've never seen a 2 shot BP before. Has anyone else, and if so what game?

Well, the above post just earned mega townpoints.

This is ridiculous. And the whole conversation between Sleepy and CC (640 - 643) is even more ridiculous.

Empking

, it should be asserted that there is a real loss on the 'off chance' you are wrong; you have lynched a town-aligned player who, for example, I could easily clear with my vigilante ability.

Why would you waste a vig kill to possibly confirm a BP claim, especially considering BP does not confirm alignment?

Sunday - why are you so concerned with Empking's vote on SleepyKrew and not anyone else's? Especially in light of Sleepy being a town read of yours. Shouldn't you be questioning everyone on the wagon to avoid lynching someone who might be town (or however you put it)?

PEDIT: The whole lynching town argument thing is really silly. Are you really 100% convinced he's town because he claimed bulletproof?

This.

[xvart]

So... No response to my comparison between basing scum reads off of unflipped town reads and basing scum reads off of unflipped scum reads?

I didn't think it needed one because it was complete and utter crap, and I'm just planning on igoring your ridiculous and garbage case, on the grounds of it being ridiculous and garbage obviously.

Some explanation on why it is complete and utter crap would be helpful. Is my logic flawed? Just saying it is complete and utter crap doesn't make it so you can articulate why. Don't worry, should SleepyKrew flips scum I'll gladly go against you toe to toe with you tomorrow and see who is more likely to be his partner. I think by morning I'll have enough evidence on you/your team to wrap this game up.

[xvart]

I'll have a post tonight but I wanted to go ahead and ask panzer to provide us with the quotes where he shares his opinion of SleepyKrew's suspicious behavior. I only ask because I don't want him to accuse me of making a "complete and utter crap" case on him so maybe if he can provide me with the evidence himself I might not have a chance to spin it out of control. Oh, just in case, connection posts (i.e. Sleepy and xvart are scum together) don't count unless there is original content specifically discussing SleepyKrew's behavior on it's own merits.

Thanks.

re: vollkan - I didn't really have an opinion on vollkan either way up until he posted quotes and links to another on going game. I thought he was threading the discussion about on going games rule a little too closely and thought he should've been modkilled. I think a behavior like that, especially coming from someone of vollkan's experience, would be reckless coming from scum since a modkill hurts scum teams significantly more than town.

[xvart]

He then doesn't realize that Sleepy is l-2 and can't hop on, so settles for trying to force a claim.

Most townies know how many votes their number two suspects have

, and it just seems like he's trying to earn townie points by showing interest in waning moments of Sleepy's life.

This is a terrible argument and an even terrible scumtell. I'll ask the rest of the players if they know how many votes their number two suspect has at all times. Plus, a couple people talking about him being a L-1 on the previous page. Plus, what do you think about my immediate vote five minutes later once the lynch threshold was clarified?

Two more sleepy mentions here(1 more left). Insist that he read the cases on SleepyKrew and reread the entire game but isn't specfic(which clearly avoid the question I asked of him) about what changed his mind. Just says, I read the game and the cases, I'm convinced and essentialy admits that he's just coattailing other cases but doesn't say what specifically.

Yes. As I've said I was hard core tunneled for most of the day. Once I started questioning my read I went with my next biggest scum read (you) and starting going in that direction. I was hardly paying any attention to anyone else so when I said I went back and reread that's exactly what I had done. You asked me what I read and I said the cases, the entire game, etc. Had I come back and said "I think SleepyKrew is scum because of X, Y, and Z which has already been said" you would now be saying "oooohhh so scummy sheeping all the other cases." So damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Just questions the claim but not in the same aggresive manner he'd been playing. It's kinda passive and regrettful like he knows that Sleepy is gonna get lynched for the bad claim.

You are over simplifying the game progression as my aggressive manner was distributed over several day and hundreds of posts. I don't always play that aggressively but when I absolutely convinced I have found scum I go after them fighting tooth and nail, advocating for their lynch and lobbying for votes. Compared to SleepyKrew I came in at the end when the case had already been built so my tenacity wasn't necessary.

This on top of the fact that both his cases on me and Hoppster are complete and utter crap filled with fail logic and misinterpretations, I'm positive he's Sleepy's buddy.

This is what is especially ironic because you agreed with over half my observations on Hoppster were indicative of scum behavior, so you can't really honestly say that my case was

now

"complete and utter crap filled with fail logic." Can you explain this contradiction?

So it seems the only legitimate part of your case on me is that I didn't say anything about SleepyKrew all day until the end; but I must remind you that those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. So I'll let you quote your observations about SleepyKrew's behavior and where you stated how that behavior is indicative of scum. Just as a preview to everyone else I found one, which is a pretty weak meta argument but I'll delve into that more once Panzer gives us a point by point display of his commentary on SleepyKrew.

---

And going back to some unfinished business from yesterday:

So... No response to my comparison between basing scum reads off of unflipped town reads and basing scum reads off of unflipped scum reads?

I didn't think it needed one because it was complete and utter crap, and I'm just planning on igoring your ridiculous and garbage case, on the grounds of it being ridiculous and garbage obviously.

Again, calling something "ridiculous and garbage" doesn't make it so. I've asked you twice to explain why it is "ridiculous and garbage". I've pretty clearly laid out my thinking and asked why you believe this to be "ridiculous and garbage" and asked you if my logic was flawed. So I'll ask again, what is "ridiculous and garbage" about this line of thinking:

1) Now I understand why hoppster was frustrated with you. You realize that question was in response to you calling me Hoppster's buddy, right? Wouldn't that count as "projecting on flips that hadn't occurred setting up a lynch(in the future)"? I think it most certainly does, and you are far more guilty of it then I am, considering your entire case on me is based on Hoppster being scum(not confirmed) and crap logic. I was simply asking you based on you calling me Hoppsters buddy, if he flipped town, if you would see me as a town defending/in agreement with another townie. This clearly isn't the case since you have composed this whole case casting a fairly large net of suspicion.

The difference between the two (me calling scum based on a scum lynch versus you calling someone scum based on a town flip) is that yours has the worst possible result: two dead townies. Mine has, at worst, the death of one townie. Calling someone scum based on a town flip is exponentially more scummy for that very reason and the fact that it has more inside information than mine (unless I am scum with both of the two I proposed as being scum together).

In the suggestion of two people being scum together (one explicitly because the other flips scum) the best case scenario is we get two dead scum. In the worst case scenario we get one dead townie. In your scenario the best case scenario will yield you one dead townie and one scum while the worst case scenario yields two dead townies. In the event that Hoppster did flip town what would we have lost? One town member and the secondary case I had on you. That's why I wasn't big on pushing you in addition to Hoppster since the only read I had on you at the time was in relationship to him, so I was content to just throw the occasional thing out to you to see how you would respond.

This is pretty important, and if anything, a clear explanation might only strengthen your case on me. But I guess that is the fundamental difference between you and me: I actually advocate for getting others to lynch who I think is scum while you sit back and mud sling and don't try and build a case when an opportunity (apparently) arises.

VOTE: Panzerjager

[xvart]

2. Saying you were tunneled is not an excuse. Tunneling is indicative of scum.

The difference between town tunneling and scum tunneling is intent. Look at the motivation and execution of my tunneling. Was I actively trying to get someone lynched whom I had expressed as scummy? What is the scum motivation for tunneling so hard and drawing so much attention to myself? When was the last time you saw tunneling of that tenacity? I'll tell you when the last time I saw it: this game, vs. quadz08.

3. Not really, you were moderately aggresive from the start and this is a pretty crap response.

Okay. Next time I'll make sure to stall out the wagon long enough for me to get a weeks worth of posting in ramping up in intensity when I'm playing like this.

4. Answered that to PBuG. I didn't fully read your case and was kinda bullshiting the agreement just to point out what i disagreed with from my skims

You didn't read it, yet you didn't read it in such a way that made you vote one of the people involved based solely on one side of the discussion that you didn't read? Plus, when asked to explain you couldn't ever provide a real answer. Scummy vote hopping and scummy justification at it's finest.

5. The burden of proof is on the accuser, I'm not doing work for you. Also I would like the other townies to note that Xvart didn't actually defend himself against the case at all.

I gave you the chance to get out ahead of this one (mainly for the reason I enjoy watching scum squirm). Here are the times you mentioned SleepyKrew and indicated that you might believe he is suspicious:

1. Post 103
   - says that SleepyKrew and Empking might be gambiting scum, yet Panzer votes Empking, the less ridiculous claim. He doesn't vote the miller mason recruiter?
   
2. Post 580
   - Votes SleepyKrew under the guise of a one game meta sample.

That's it. Like I said, those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But delving into the sole reason he expressed for voting Sleepy:

I also just recent finished a game with him, He seemed to tunnel a lot harder. He essentially stayed on target the whole game. I didn't notice this but now that everyone is pointing it out, I want back and checked. I'd be willing to see if this is a meta trait.

Vote:SleepyKrew

The sole reason Panzerjager voted SleepyKrew (since he had said nothing else up until this point throughout the entire game) is because of a one game meta sample (plus the added benefit of knowing if it was a meta trait later on). His thoughts on meta:

@Hiplop: One game is not a meta.

A) i know, i had to search all your posts,
b) one was a mini-normal, not sure on the name/number, but it was near the end of your search history.

You can't meta someone from 2 years ago, people change

You can't meta someone from 2 games, Sample size.

You can't meta someone from a game that they made 10 posts in, sample size.

Meta in general is garbage.

FoS:Hiplop

He's is drawing conclusions mainly from garbage meta, and I happen to know that Hiplop, myself, and Sleepy were all in a game together that just ended and have the sneaking suspicion that because his "meta" is solely based of that game

, seeing as he doesn't have meta's on anyone else and normally Meta players will meta read everyone. I find drawing suspicions from irrelevent things scum because he trying to push the lynch of a townie based on fallacious statements and generally stir the pot.

So in post 449 Panzerjager votes solely because of meta in one game when he has made it painfully obvious how worthless meta is in case building. When questioned about it he says he wanted to see if it was in fact a meta trait.

1. Why does he care if it is a meta trait if he thinks meta is worthless;
   
2. The reason behind the vote is the meta argument (which he finds worthless) and not the intent to find out a meta trait.

If that isn't a not so subtle way to get on a wagon I don't know what is. His reasons for voting are inconsistent with what he has been telling us, which is very indicative of scum.

[xvart]

...laziness is actually a towntell, all things considered.

So, with this thought in mind, where do you fall on the "not knowing your second suspect's vote count" is a scum tell? Or do you think it is ridiculous and the other points against me stand on their own right?

[xvart]

I'll have several posts coming but I'll break them up and make them as concise as possible.

First, I just want to point out an example of Panzerjager's opinion changing over time that correlates with the momentum of the game, which is a scum motivated behavior (the red highlights are the important bits and bullet points follow at the end). In this example, his opinion of me throughout the game:

Also, REALLY liking xvart right now.

Whoa,

unvote,Vote:xvart

didn't even notice all that

I wanna see Toro vig Jakesh tonight.

Did I miss something? What did you notice Panzer?

Everything in Hoppster's post

Given the re-explanation I'm not so sure.

Just Hopps response seem really good, and I figured you were scum pushing his lynch

Unvote

for now.

Suspects:
One of Xvart or Hoppster:

The way they've interacted, I'd be willing to say one of them are certainly scum, not tame enough for distancing.

Right now I leaning toward Hoppster being scummier

because he has been kinda flimsy, and

Xvart has been much more assertative like he has nothing to hide.

@xvart: I didn't notice that most your case is based on things that hoppster has already covered(wall of relevent post), but

you do make legitimate points

(he's flimsy and seems to be content trying to work from a distance). They way you guys have been going at each other does seem like one is scum. I feel CC has much more damning stuff against him then either of you do.

One of the two(Xvart and Hoppster) are most likely scum because of the way they've gone after each other.

I'm not compelled by Xvart's arguement.

I'm sure one of the one hiplop's in the game(only one person in the game named hiplop, 1 of 1)is scum. It was a clever way to word, "I think hiplop is scum, far more than hopp.

I would be willing to bet that if sleepy flips that

Xvart is his buddy.

FoS:Xvart

For, blatantly wagoning Sleepy without reason, spouting some serious fail logic against both me and Hoppster, and generally seemimg like scum trying to make big deals out of nothing.

And I will repeat my statement, Seems like

xvart is bussing Sleepy.

Bullet Points:

1. The first time expresses suspicion at me is right after hoppster's repost of all of hoppsters quotes.
   
2. When questioned about his vote and his reasoning he responds with the non descript "everything in hoppsters post;"
   
3. When questioned
   again
   he said he thought I was scum pushing his lynch (nothing relative to the content of hoppsters post as he claimed);
   
4. Then, he says one of hoppster or I are scum, but he is leaning towards hoppster as being scum;
   
5. Referencing the hoppster/xvart argument, Panzer says I make legitimate points in the whole hoppster discussion;
   
6. Then he's not compelled by my arguments, even though he has agreed that many of the points I made are indicative of scum alignment (which coincides to when I started pushing on him independent of hoppster);
   
7. Finally, I'm scum buddies with SleepyKrew.

I trust I don't even need to point out the obvious contradiction between him saying I make legitimate points and then not being compelled by my arguments and how his view on me waxes and wanes based on how scummy I explain him to be.

How Panzer's behavior moves with the momentum of the game:

1. When I first started my big push on hoppster he votes me for being scum;
   
2. When called out for having a weak vote that he can't legitimately explain he backs off of me;
   
3. When I ramp up the pressure on hoppster and start getting some movement in the hoppster direction he agrees with my case (to a significant degree) and thinks I am less likely to be scum;
   
4. When I start pressuring him and calling him scum independent of hoppster he disagrees with my cases that he previously agreed with and thinks I'm scummy because of that.

Stay tuned for contradictions by Panzerjager!!

[xvart]

I don't see what my quote has to do with your question, however I think that's a nulltell. I'm not voting you because of Panzer's points, though. I'm voting you for spending an incredibly significant portion of yesterday twisting Hoppster's words every which way and claiming he said and did things that he did not do only to suddenly jump on SleepyKrew who had been sheeping you all day. That reeks loudly of a bus. The connection with SK is there for you, but I don't see it with Panzer. That's the key reason why I think it's you.

I asked for opinions on the tell he was pushing and nobody responded. Since you mentioned me allegedly attacking Panzer instead of responding to his points (the tell being one of the examples I assume) I wanted to ask you what you thought specifically of that. Because it looks to me like he is padding his "case" to make it appear more original and well thought out.

[xvart]

Panzer's contradictions and how they are scum motivated

:

Miller Claim(s)

:

Note: This isn't so much a direct contradiction but an inconsistency with a direct relevance to flipped SleepyKrew.

Umm, Did anyone see Sleepy's Miller Mason Recruiter claim? I think the scum are gambiting us here. EK claims miller straight away then Sleepy calim's he's not only a miller but a Mason Recruiter as well? I'd be willing to bet there are not two millers in the game. Or two masons.

Vote:EmpKing

Toro is acting scummy but I really don't think he is part of the scum team.

Panzer says he thinks two things:

1. There aren't two millers in the game;
   
2. There aren't two masons in the game.

He votes the one that only fills one of those criteria. Be degrees of separation, if he thinks both are lying scum why not vote the one that is lying the most?

regardless

I think Empking is lying about his miller claim.

This is partly why I think the claim is bullshit because he has a good reason to think he'll be investigated therefore if he claims miller, then there is no point.

The act of claiming miller is on null-leaning town.

The reason as to why he did it is the concerning part. Toro's logic of "he could be lying" is shitty(as hoppster said) because anyone could be lying. The reason why he claimed was scummy.

The 196 comment is null because the logic applies (thinking he might be investigated because of who he is) whether or not Empking is town or scum, so unless Panzer has additional proof of him being scum at this point his argument is not logically sound.

The basis of the contradiction is he is voting for Empking because he thinks he is lying about the miller claim (114). His justification later (196) I've shown to be logically invalid. Then he says the act of claiming miller is null leaning town (282). If the act of claiming miller itself is null leaning town and his reasoning for voting is logically inconsistent, then he can't possibly think Empking is lying (unless he is covering it up after the fact).

Panzer's opinions on my hoppster case

:

Note: this has already been covered somewhat in my previous post, but for relevance I wanted to include in this post.

@xvart: I didn't notice that most your case is based on things that hoppster has already covered(wall of relevent post), but you do make legitimate points(he's flimsy and seems to be content trying to work from a distance).

Scum motivated behaviors you have exhibited:

1. Changing reads that coincide with wagon momentum;
   
2. Attacking the attacker and not the attack;
   
3. Justifying actions after the fact with information not available and unprovable;
   
4. Knowing someone's town alignment
   ;
   
5. Directing a possible vig kill to a single individual
   ; and,
   
6. Mismatched suspicions and voting (debatable).

I didn't see where he knew someone's alignment
Directing the vig is fine at this point, still saying Toro should vig Jakesh

@Xvart: the others are indicative of scum, but I feel CC and Hiplop are much more scummy at this point in time.

One of the two(Xvart and Hoppster) are most likely scum because of the way they've gone after each other. I'm not compelled by Xvart's arguement. I'm sure one of the one hiplop's in the game(only one person in the game named hiplop, 1 of 1)is scum. It was a clever way to word, "I think hiplop is scum, far more than hopp.

FoS:Xvart

For, blatantly wagoning Sleepy without reason, spouting some serious fail logic against both me and Hoppster, and generally seemimg like scum trying to make big deals out of nothing.

This on top of the fact that both his cases on me and Hoppster are complete and utter crap filled with fail logic and misinterpretations, I'm positive he's Sleepy's buddy.

So, he's compelled by my arguments and agrees with 4/6 of the points I brought up when I'm not attacking him. Then when I shift gears onto him and start building a case on him all of the sudden the arguments he previously agreed on and was compelled by those same arguments become "fail logic" and "complete and utter crap" and "fail logic and misinterpertations."

Using meta as a scumhunting tool

:

@Hiplop:

One game is not a meta.

A) i know, i had to search all your posts,
b) one was a mini-normal, not sure on the name/number, but it was near the end of your search history.

You can't meta someone from 2 years ago, people change

You can't meta someone from 2 games, Sample size.

You can't meta someone from a game that they made 10 posts in, sample size.

Meta in general is garbage.

He's is drawing conclusions mainly from garbage meta, and I happen to know that

Hiplop, myself, and Sleepy were all in a game together that just ended and have the sneaking suspicion that because his "meta" is solely based of that game

, seeing as he doesn't have meta's on anyone else and normally Meta players will meta read everyone. I find drawing suspicions from irrelevent things scum because he trying to push the lynch of a townie based on fallacious statements and generally stir the pot.

I also just recent finished a game with him, He seemed to tunnel a lot harder. He essentially stayed on target the whole game. I didn't notice this but now that everyone is pointing it out, I want back and checked.

I'd be willing to see if this is a meta trait.

I said I'd be interested in seeing if was a metathing. I think he his scum independent of this.

@Vollkan/591: The meta tell is periphery, and did encourage me on to hop on the wagon, but he is scummy regardless of his meta. He has been fairly non-commital and cautious. Hasn't ever truly scumhunted in this game(which I would attribute to a handful of players in the game) and majority of his post are just meaning less one liners or questions clarifying kinda pointless things. If it also happens to be his meta, then that's something for me to keep in mind if i play more games with him in the future, but his actions are scummy on their own

The meta argument was discussed a little bit yesterday but with SleepyKrew's flip it seems even more important. The obvious bolded quotes show how Panzer is using the "meta is crap" argument when it fits for him but uses meta to join SleepyKrew's wagon. The most interesting part is the statements I've highlighted in

red

. He first references one game admonishing the meta tell against him but then uses what I presume is the exact same game (correct me if I am wrong) as a alleged "peripheral" reason for joining the wagon (despite not having said anything about SleepyKrew since the miller discussion in the first few pages of the game).

Plus, the biggest point of interest is

why is someone that is so vocal and vehemently opposed to meta arguments interested in seeing if something is actually a meta trait?

Doesn't seem that someone who thinks meta is garbage is really interested in having a meta trait in his pocket for future games.

Summary

:

Two of the three arguments outlined above revolve around Panzer's behavior with regard to flipped scum SleepyKrew:

1. Weak bus on SleepyKrew while voting Empking;
   
2. Joining the SleepyKrew wagon when he had never expressed suspicion of him in game.

The other one directly correlates to pressure being applied to him.

Both characteristics are scum motivated.

[xvart]

xvart, if Panzer is scum, who do you see as a potential scumbuddy(/ies)?

Well, I would probably still consider hoppster but Panzerjager's post that originally made me shift gears pretty much clears hoppster of being scum since Panzer would have been setting up himself being more town and me being more scum based off of a hoppster town flip, and I don't see the benefit of scum Panzer sublty planting that seed if he knew hoppster was going to flip scum. Otherwise, independent of Panzer's flip I see CC being scum, especially considering his absence and "catch up posts" when he has loads of time. His PBuG/Empking connection comment is especially out of the blue with no real context or explanation. This definitely feels like active lurking under the guise of "he look I've got scumpair connections so I'm scum hunting." He makes no commentary at all about SleepyKrew's flip and the implications on other players.

What is especially concerning/interesting is he says in his original post upon return that he will have relevant quotes and stuff for the people he thinks is scum and not town, but it appears he is going through posting about players regardless of reading all players first.

I'd like to go back through and take a closer look at people sitting on the fence about hoppster and I, because when Panzer flips scum I think the other buddy/ies might have exhibited similar behavior to Panzer sitting the fence or even saying "one of the two is scum". A situation like that, if ever went to fruition, would have been gold for scum because it would have caused two mislynches with all the blame falling on me.

[xvart]

Xvart cases are ridiculously scummy, I feel EXACTLY like Hoppster did when he was being attacked by Xvart. He says I've contradicted myself, when the posts he is using to say I contradicted myself are the very posts I'm explaining myself. Look at my post 282. I literally tell everyone why I found(don't anymore) emp to be lying. Seriously,

Read the entire posts

These just reaks of chainsaw defense and flailing.

You still haven't explained why you thought my case was reasonably sound up until I started attacking you, at which point they apparently became "fail logic", "utter crap," etc. And now that I've turned the heat up on you, my cases have gone beyond that into the

scummy

case pile. When did you deferintiate between my case being "fail logic" and "scummy"?

More votes please.

[xvart]

I'd rather deal with CC-scum today than try and sort out the mess of whether you or Panzer (or TheFool, but he's mostly an option to me if CC somehow flips town) is scum. You must realize how sketchy you look after day 1. My vote isn't moving anytime soon.

Be that as it may, advocating for and building wagons on people they believe are scum is what town members do.

Gut.

That's it? At this point in the game and everything else that has been posted about Panzer?

A) Did you really forget we were masons together?

What is this I don't even... Seriously, I'm going to have some words once some of my games end. Needless to say, at this juncture, I'm less than convinced about this claim seeing the response from his alleged mason buddy.

[xvart]

Sorry. At a conference in New Orleans and not as much time in the evenings as I thought to post. Will be back late tomorrow so post either then or the next day.

[xvart]

Free internet connection at the New Orleans Airport! Had a few too many drinks but I accept all responsibility for my actions thereof.

If Thomith doesn't confirm the masonry Panzer just shot up my scumdar for saying xvart/Fool are scumbuddies and voting CC.

Scum city.

IF

Thomith doesn't confirm the masonry Panzer just shot up his scumar for

something else

? This is absurd! Regardless of the qualifier or whatever else, if Thomith doesn't declare scum with the masonry then Panzer is scum regardless of anything else that is going on! PBug seems to be making obscure association and relationship tells to shift blame around.

If Panzer isn't scum then PBurg most certainly is.

confirming masonry. although i didnt want to out really. UNVOTE:

Your fault for suspecting your mason buddy. Well, either way, this clears Panzer so if his wagon could kindly unvote, we need to lynch CC and then most likely xvart.

my reasoning behind it was

if he did die mafia

couldn't easily call me out as mason buddy.

This is exactly why I am more inclined to believe that this whole mason stuff is complete and utter bullshit. Thomith is now concocting a story about how he didn't want the obvious connection to his mason buddy who flips

maifa

???? The whole point of masonry is that they are confirmed town to each other!

Monk is being rather charming. I like his read on the game. Want to read a more complete one. And he is right that I am indecisive. It is a flaw I like to pretend is strategic.

WTF? He is being charming? He has posted about five sentences, of which he could have easily pulled from a scum QT. He has given no real opinions of any of the major events of the game or why his reads are what they are.

(A) If you thought SleepyKrew was being serious about his claim, why did you not vote him? His role (ie. the Mason Recruiter bit) is blatantly impossible if you were a mason, so he is essentially CC'ing you. But you voted for the Miller claim that wasn't CC'ing you [Empking] over the one that was [SleepyKrew]? Why?

(B) Umm, this should be self-explanatory. You said you didn't think there were any masons, but you and Thomith

are

Masons apparently.

This. A thousand times, this. This totally contradicts his vote on Empking over SleepyKrew. If he knew he was a mason and someone outside his mason group claimed mason and

he thought it was a serious claim

he should have immediately voted the person

who claimed to be a mason

over the person who only claimed to be a milller.

Id be willing to bet their aren't two millers(emp,sleepy) or two masons(me and thomith, sleepy and whomever). Is what the sentence meant. It was deliberatly vague cause I didn't wanna claim early.

Also I just liked the empking lynch more.

WTF. Someone counterclaimed your role (mason) and you thought it was a serious claim (as you said many many times) and you voted someone else?!??!?!? This is a town reaction how?

Well damn, Panzar is a mason? That changes things somewhat, it also means I'm gonna have to reread again. Dammit.

Not necessarily. Let me remind you of your situation replacing into a game about 34 pages long...

Also You can't speculate Fools Relation to Xvart unless he flips, which was Xvart's fatal Flaw. His whole case on me is based on Hoppster being scum and then some very convincing picking and choosing of what to cut/paste. Right now it seems most people case on Fool is that Xvart is scum, which can't be done.

LOL! Says the guy who was projecting scum based on town flips

and

says the person who never argued on why projecting scum based on town flips being more townie than someone suggesting scum based on scum flips.\

Seriously, read Panzer's claim and the way his "mason partner" responds. It totally looks like Thomith didn't know that this was coming and scumPanzer claimed to save himself. And the whole fact that it appears they forgot that typical mason roles can communicate outside of thread and then when asked about it Panzer said "oooohhh we didn't ever use our obvious townie action of night talking especially considering all the juicy stuff in thread to talk about." Perhaps it is because they were actually talking about everything already in their scum QT?

[xvart]

Also you're putting words in my mouth. We didn't claim we forgot, we claimed that we weren't using it/ignoring it.

Your mason partner apparently forgot, hence his vote and stumbling around not knowing what you were talking about even after you made it obvious what you were trying to say.

Rawr I hate this post, disection:

Free internet connection at the New Orleans Airport! Had a few too many drinks but I accept all responsibility for my actions thereof.

If Thomith doesn't confirm the masonry Panzer just shot up my scumdar for saying xvart/Fool are scumbuddies and voting CC.

Scum city.

IF

Thomith doesn't confirm the masonry Panzer just shot up his scumar for

something else

? This is absurd! Regardless of the qualifier or whatever else, if Thomith doesn't declare scum with the masonry then Panzer is scum regardless of anything else that is going on! PBug seems to be making obscure association and relationship tells to shift blame around.

If Panzer isn't scum then PBurg most certainly is.

Another jump onto someone you haven't mentioned before?

You don't find it, at the very least, odd that he PBuG thinks if Thomith is doesn't confirm the masonry that Panzer is scum because of other reasons outside of the obvious lie that would have been exposed? That was my point.

reading comprehension get some. Basically thomith was worried about being shot by the mafia if Panzer flips town, if I had to I'd rather lynch Thomith to confirm because of the shocking play.

You are right. That was a fail in reading comprehension.

I seriously don't know what panzer was doing, but you have more scum points

You are not suspicious in the slightest that Panzer, fully claiming multiple times that he thought the miller mason claim was not a joke did not vote for someone who claimed to have the same role as him and was not in his mason group?

Why is it in any way bad for him to go back and read through the thread?

It is not bad at all. That is not what I was implying when I was speaking directly to him. Heliman will know what I'm talking about and I am not at liberty to say anymore, and he shouldn't say anything more about it either.

Well put. It reads like scum watching his wagon fall apart and flailing to find a better target, especially with the weak and out-of-nowhere jump to PBuG.

Flailing looking for a better target? How? I am still voting for whom I think is scum, and not actively pursuing anyone else.

Although I agree that the masonry claim is a bit unusually handled, it seems silly to lynch a claimed mason on Day 2. If they are scum, assuming a 3-man scum team they're putting all their eggs in one basket; it's a risky strategy that becomes riskier as the game goes on.

It is a risky strategy, which is further compounded by the way Thomith reacted and seemed completely oblivious to the fact that they were masons. It appears to me that Panzer, at the risk of being lynched (for good reason) claimed this mason thing (despite it contradicting his previous voting record on someone else who claimed to be a mason) to get people off his back. And it appears to be working.

I also find it incredibly hard to believe given that they supposedly have daytalk that no conversation happened at all during D1 when I was attacking Hoppster or when I was attacking regarding whether or not they thought I was scum. No conversation about Toro actually being a one shot vig. Nothing. Nothing. Those would be the pinnacle places that at the very least some level of conversation would happen between mason partners. Not even a "hello are you there?" from Panzer to the alleged absent minded Thomith who supposedly forgot he was a mason.

[xvart]

My gut says that mason-claiming scum wouldn't claim daytalk if they didn't have it themselves. As such, Thomith's obliviousness isn't necessarily a scum tell, since he'd presumably be prepped for the gambit.

It doesn't really matter because we can't prove daytalking capabilities either way.

Panzer - you have yet to answer why:

1. You thought SleepyKrew's miller mason claim was serious;
   
2. You didn't believe that there would be two mason groups in the same game;
   
3. SleepyKrew was not a member of your supposed mason group;
   
4. You didn't vote SleepyKrew, who for all practical purposes, claimed scum from your point of view.

More to the point though, do you disagree that a masonry fakeclaim becomes flimsier as the game goes on, and is thus a bad lynch currently?

Depending on the setup and the amount of WIFOM that the town is willing to take, yes. However, I have seen scum fake claim mason before in situations where sustainability of the claim is difficult. I do not see the logic in withholding a lynch on someone, regardless of claim, in hopes that it gets busted open later. When scumhunting I look for motivation and intent. When someone contradicts previous statements and actions he has committed, especially when it direct correlates to game momentum/wagon movement, it is scummy.

With this in mind, and in my defense, the point that should be made is what is the scum motivation, intent, and benefit from being such a vocal player, advocating for lynches and fighting tooth and nail for lynches, and drawing incredible amounts of attention because of this? Furthermore, what is the scum benefit from continuing to push a lynch on someone who claimed mason unless I really believed it. Is that the sort of attention that a scum member would want?

If Panzer/Thomith are not scum then I would probably consider PBuG and Hoppster as scum. I haven't liked Empking's posting/voting as of late, but from my limited experience playing with him this isn't a scumtell. Hoppster has been fairly absent from the game since I shifted attention off of him.

I'm not claiming until there is an intent to hammer.

[xvart]

On the first bit, I just liked the Empking lynch better. I wasn't really thinking about the implications it would have when I did have to claim.

Id be willing to bet their aren't two millers(emp,sleepy) or two masons(me and thomith, sleepy and whomever). Is what the sentence meant. It was deliberatly vague cause I didn't wanna claim early.

Also I just liked the empking lynch more.

I'm not talking about the implications of what you said. I'm talking directly about your thought process behind

you not voting someone you knew to be lying about his role

. Your clarification (915) of the original post clearly states that you knew that one of the mason groups was lying.

Id be willing to bet their aren't two millers(emp,sleepy) or two masons(me and thomith, sleepy and whomever). Is what the sentence meant. It was deliberatly vague cause I didn't wanna claim early.

Also I just liked the empking lynch more.

If you were a mason, your thought process would have looked like this:

two masons (

Panzer

and

Thomith

) OR (

sleepyKrew

and

whomever

)

someone must be lying about their role, since there couldn't be two mason groups in the same game. Since you would know you are town mason you would eliminate the person you know not to be lying (from your perspective):

two masons (

Panzer

and

Thomith

) OR (

sleepyKrew

and

whomever

)

Leaving SleepyKrew as the lying scumbag. How could you "like another lynch more" than someone who is lying about his role? Considering SleepyKrew flipped scum it looks more and more like a subtle bus considering the information you are now claiming.

[xvart]

Daytalking is relatively standard in my experiance with masons.

In my experience I have never seen a day talking mason. I went through all the games in the current mini normal queue and didn't find one daytalking mason in a completed game. I went back to the archives and did some more looking with the same results:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 4#p2896494
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 7#p3118587
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 1#p3182181
http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 651#p65651
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 6#p2795116

Panzer

- No response to your obvious voting motivation failure in conjunction with flipped scum and your alleged inside knowledge? I can't say it enough: Based on everything Panzer has said at the time of his vote on Empking and all the alleged role information that he had that

he knew without a doubt that SleepyKrew was lying scum, yet voted someone else.

Hoppster

- I never said it was a

good

defense. It tied hand in hand with what I was saying with motivation and intent behind specific behaviors. I believe my behavior to be town motivated, in that I am advocating and trying to get scummy people lynched. I have yet to see anyone discuss my scum intent and motivations. Furthermore, if it is a null tell why does it fill you with bloodlust? And, if it is a null tell then what exactly am I being accused of doing?

The frustrating part is that Panzer

has a repeated pattern of scum motivated behavior

and is getting off because "ooohhh mason claim" despite

the claim itself being revealed in a scummy manner

in addition to

the claim directly contradicting things he said and his voting pattern

in his second post of the game. The fact that he has yet to provide a coherent response, let alone a response at all, is highly suspicious.

[xvart]

Let me get this straight: the thinking is to delay the lynching of Panzer, who knew SleepyKrew was scum and didn't vote for SleepyKrew because Panzer "liked" the Empking lynch "better", and for all practical purposes is scum beyond any sort of reasonable doubt, just because we aren't in LYLO yet?

[xvart]

xvart top scum other than the masons with a friggin case go!!

Well, changing my alternative reads a little bit, I would say you are scum if Panzer and Thomith are not. Despite what others have said about how townie your entrance to the game was your behavior has been anything but protown. I think it's funny that you are asking me for a "friggin case" when you have given anything but an actual case on anyone, but that is neither here nor there.

Monk hasn't put together a single coherent case on anyone despite his best efforts to appear that way. His read on me has flipped several times with insufficient information justifying the reads:

Scumersons

• Xvart

monk is Towny McTownperson. I say we turn this wagon around and lynch Xvart.

Let's run with this for the moment:
VOTE: xvart

UNVOTE: xvart

reasoning to come momentarily

In the end I think he's closer to being town though he's fine enough staying in null so let's ISO his original pick for scum: Hoppster

xvart goes back to scummy read, in ISO he's not scummy but when you actually go find the stuff he's pulling up it's non-existent/quotefarmed beyond recognition.

xvart however doesn't seem to have any major links to SK pending on PBuG and I guess panzer showing me these, I'm not too sold on it, though I still need another scum read. I'll have another read through the thread.

VOTE: xvart
Horrible post was horrible

That's pretty much it except you're bloody scummy so we're taking you down first if scum are smart they could leave the masons alive I mean take 1175 for an example, just finished up and the masons stayed alive also as I said id rather lynch thomith if we had no other leads

Monk says I'm scum right out of the gate. Then he ISOs me and I'm town. Then he ISOs hoppster and realizes that I'm scum again. The biggest issue with coming back around to thinking I'm scum is that he does it based off of someone else's ISO. If he really believed that opinion he would have thought my actions were scummy independent of that, since I repeatedly quoted and referenced Hoppsters posts that apparently now condemn me. Furthermore, by this time he had already read the thread in entirety what appears to be three times so my level of scumminess should have been apparent through any one of those rereads in the context of the entire game. Plus, your predecessors behavior (which you seem to agree upon).

Can you articulate your case on me? Why do you think I am "bloody scummy"? I have yet to see a coherent post (from anyone) explaining how my behaviors are more likely to come from scum.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Monk

Going back to Hoppster, I really dislike how he has been relatively unengaged with the game once I stopped pressuring him. Essentially, his entire D2 has revolved around asking people why nobody listened to him about SleepyKrew or why nobody is explaining why there were ignoring him. There have been some other peripheral comments (some in relationship to his large font SleepyKrew condemnation) and some other non committal comments. If Hoppster is scum with SleepyKrew then he could have just started pushing him while he was under attack to save face, maybe save himself, or if he did flip to clear SleepyKrew.

The whole "let's talk about yesterday" attitude is underwhelming and not constructive unless he identified people who he thought was deliberately ignoring him to save SleepyKrew (as town would do); which hasn't happened. His only concern appears to be that he be recognized as the driving force on SleepyKrew.

I also forgot about the question he asked asking everyone for their read on volkkan. What was the point of this question? We all knew he flipped town so what exactly was he trying to get at here? Again, if there was something to indicate scum from this question why was there no follow up? It is just a fluff question otherwise. Plus, the whole railing on me for something he says is a null tell and then talking about his blood boiling is interesting.

And I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now that Panzer has once again avoided responding to my commentary on his claim/voting record...

Panzer

- No response to your obvious voting motivation failure in conjunction with flipped scum and your alleged inside knowledge? I can't say it enough: Based on everything Panzer has said at the time of his vote on Empking and all the alleged role information that he had that

he knew without a doubt that SleepyKrew was lying scum, yet voted someone else.

And at the risk of continuing to be the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving that won't shut up and nobody listens to, the point Panzer made was that daytalking masons was standard fare, not that it has happened once before. The fact that he won't even put in the effort to look up this information is moderately concerning, but he has shown a level of disinterest in actually providing examples or doing any sort of leg work to get what he wants, so again, I'm not too surprised.

[xvart]

I seriously don't know what panzer was doing, but you have more scum points

Please articulate why I have more scum points than Panzer. You have neglected to differentiate our play in comparison to each other and relative to scum motivations of each. In fact, you haven't made a single comment regarding Panzer's alignment other than your first list grouping him in the town category.

[xvart]

I'm only restraining myself because I have seen town do that stupid defence before, otherwise, believe, I would be baying for your blood on the basis of that post

alone

.

As I said, it's the only thing I could say because no real substantive case has actually been presented on me being scum (and if it has, a link to it will shut me up). It's also a comparison of play, specifically to Panzer. I have detailed exactly why Panzer's behavior, posts, and commentary come from a scum mindset and the best that I have actually seen presented on me is this WIFOM "his attacks are so scummy."

Explain to me, xvart, why it was that on Day 1 you were able to respond to my walls but you somehow selectively chose not to respond to the bits where I called out SleepyKrew as scum.

Oh good. Now that I've called you out for never following up on your "HEY WHY WAS NOBODY LISTENING TO ME YESTERDAY???" with no follow up or determination of people ignoring you being indicative of scum you bust out how I was selectively not responding, implying scum motivation? When I have someone pegged as scum I rarely listen to them and who they think is scum as their opinion can be sorted out as a bus or whatever after they flip. When I thought you were 100% scum I didn't care who you thought was scum because you were, in my opinion at the time, scum. Once I started questioning my read on you I went back (as I have said) and was looking at what you were saying.

Do you think my "selective reading" of your SleepyKrew suspicion yesterday was scum motivated? If so, why are you just now bringing this up???

So the real question is why did you make such a big deal out of nobody listening to you yesterday and never assigned any reads based on the people that ignored you? With no follow up to that line of questioning it seems awfully close to just wanting to show off how you were the proponent of SleepyKrew lynch and nothing else. That is only compounded by your relative lack of contribution today outside of making a big deal out of nobody listening to you. Those two behaviors combined look an awful lot like scum trying to not make waves today and attempting to ride the town cred you established by pushing the SleepyKrew case.

Your vote on monk is bad bad bad. Changing your mind is not a scum-tell. In this case I'm inclined to believe it's a town-tell as from time-stamps etc. there's clearly a train of thought. You like talking about how there's no scum motivation for your posts - explain the scum motivation for monk saying you're town and then changing his mind before anybody has posted. (I'll give you a clue - the only one is WIFOMic.)

I am quite aware that changing one's mind is not a scumtell; in fact, we've discussed this before. The problem, as was the case with you, is that there was no logical explanation of the changing read or justification for the changing read that is especially concerning. That is compounded by the logic presented for his changing read seemed disingenuous at best and opportunistic at worst.

Give us a list of reads. "X and Y are scummy" is not what I'm looking for. I mean a player-by-player list of reads.

That's not going to happen because it isn't how I operate. I rarely get town reads or assign town tells to people. I hunt scum. Typically I have scum reads and everyone else is a null read. In rare cases I'll see something that someone says that is unique to a town vantage point that would almost certainly not come from a scum mindset, but that is rare. I've given to everyone on a platter where my opinions lay based on possible setup permutations.

[xvart]

Here is my original case on you:

in ISO he's not scummy but when you actually go find the stuff he's pulling up it's non-existent/quotefarmed beyond recognition.

Case on you: horrendous amounts of misrepresentation, huge song and dance about you being picked on because you're verbose, suggesting we should lynch the masons, which flies in the face of all reason. I have stated this and you haven't seemed to comment on it, more misrep of someone who is actively participating with you. So let me put this out clearly:

What on earth is the TOWN reason for blatant misrepresentation of someone and distraction tactics of going, oh look over there "have a post wall where I've chopped and changed the friggin case on me beyond recognition"

The problem, as I have explained, is that there is a disconnect about your "original case" on me when you came to the realization that I was being scum and misrepping people. You called me scum in your first real post of the day (no commentary). You even voted me a little later (no commentary). The disconnect occurs when you read me in ISO and then unvote me and put me in the leaning town/null category. Then you ISO Hoppster and come to the conclusion that I am scum based on Hoppsters ISO, presumably because I misrepped him and quote farmed into oblivion or whatever. If you truly believed this why did it take you a read through, an ISO of me, and an ISO of Hoppster to come to this conclusion? And if you really did just come to that conclusion at that point in the game why were you originally voting me? If you believed that when you first replaced into the game when you accused me of being scum and voted me, why did you unvote me?

Your voting pattern and justifications do not align with what you are saying, unless there is some mystical reason you thought I was scum before you ISOed me.

Oh, and not for nothing, but your final area tagged is a failed example because you are asking what is the town benefit and not asking what is the scum benefit/motivation. There is a distinct difference.

Case on you: horrendous amounts of misrepresentation, huge song and dance about you being picked on because you're verbose, suggesting we should lynch the masons, which flies in the face of all reason. I have stated this and you haven't seemed to comment on it, more misrep of someone who is actively participating with you.

Where was my "huge song and dance about [me] being picked on because [I'm] verbose"?
Wanting to lynch a claimed mason does not fly in the face of all reason because Panzer is so incredibly scummy it is sickening. Not lynching someone who has committed such atrocious scumtells flies in the face of all reason. Regardless of all the contradictions that Panzer has done and his overall scummy behavior the sole fact that he didn't want to lynch SleepyKrew on D1 when he thought SleepyKrew was being serious with his mason miller claim and knew there wouldn't be two mason groups in the same game is basically claiming scum in my book.

This is entirely untrue. I have stated several times why you are scummy, and why your attacks are scummy but you either have horrible reading comprehension or are deliberately twisting the words. Honestly I'm about to quit responding to you all together, and have been deliberately ignoring your case on me because it's shit.

It isn't shit as much as you wish it were true. The fact remains that you thought SleepyKrew was serious with his mason claim. You said as much on a few separate occasions. You then said you didn't think there would be two mason groups in the same game. SleepyKrew flipped scum. You then claimed mason.

The other pertinent thing you have been avoiding answering directly correlates with your "case" on me (something a town person would want to sort out to help lynch the person they believe to be scum),

that being that you agreed with a majority of my points on Hoppster and then when I put the full court press on you those same things you agreed with all the sudden become the basis for your case on me.

Town have nothing to hide and you seem to be hiding the answers to these questions well.

Xvart, despite what I said in 970, seems to be the best second option. After rereading the last game I played with him again, He actually seems even more defensive then he was in the last game, if that's even a possibility.

Ok Xvart, I'm threatening a hammer on you (again). What's your claim?

To be honest, once I'm lynched in this game I believe I will have been lynched more the past two weeks than in my entire mafiascum history combined. For what it is worth (probably not much), I don't think I have a solid meta against me but with the limited number of times I've been lynched I think the closest to meta someone can find on me is I stay calm and collected when getting lynched as scum whereas I am more desperate as town because I know the lynch on me is a mislynch.

I am a Vanilla Townie. I still want to go back and research Panzer's archived games to dig up his mason experience (since his town mindset is to do the absolute minimum to prove he is town when under suspicion). Also, if it comes down to lynching a VT, I would highly suggest lynching Monk instead due to his obvious disconnect and voting patterns. People that do not have consistent voting are more likely to be scum. CC was a decent lynch back when he was in the game and Monk's behavior makes it a better lynch now.

Anyways, drop your hammer as you wish. No hard feelings. It was a fun game. I have failed the town and for that I apologize.

[xvart]

One final thought, in concise manner: Tomorrow, you'll need to look at the people on my wagon and specifically their reasons for joining my wagon. Each I have already deconstructed but for easy of reference tomorrow:

Monk

:

The problem, as I have explained, is that there is a disconnect about your "original case" on me when you came to the realization that I was being scum and misrepping people. You called me scum in your first real post of the day (no commentary). You even voted me a little later (no commentary). The disconnect occurs when you read me in ISO and then unvote me and put me in the leaning town/null category. Then you ISO Hoppster and come to the conclusion that I am scum based on Hoppsters ISO, presumably because I misrepped him and quote farmed into oblivion or whatever. If you truly believed this why did it take you a read through, an ISO of me, and an ISO of Hoppster to come to this conclusion? And if you really did just come to that conclusion at that point in the game why were you originally voting me? If you believed that when you first replaced into the game when you accused me of being scum and voted me, why did you unvote me?

Panzer

:

The other pertinent thing you have been avoiding answering directly correlates with your "case" on me (something a town person would want to sort out to help lynch the person they believe to be scum),

that being that you agreed with a majority of my points on Hoppster and then when I put the full court press on you those same things you agreed with all the sudden become the basis for your case on me.

Town have nothing to hide and you seem to be hiding the answers to these questions well.

Another question that needs to be followed up on tomorrow if it isn't answered before I die (directed to Hoppster):

Do you think my "selective reading" of your SleepyKrew suspicion yesterday was scum motivated? If so, why are you just now bringing this up???

So the real question is why did you make such a big deal out of nobody listening to you yesterday and never assigned any reads based on the people that ignored you? With no follow up to that line of questioning it seems awfully close to just wanting to show off how you were the proponent of SleepyKrew lynch and nothing else. That is only compounded by your relative lack of contribution today outside of making a big deal out of nobody listening to you. Those two behaviors combined look an awful lot like scum trying to not make waves today and attempting to ride the town cred you established by pushing the SleepyKrew case.

Another follow up to something:

Your vote on monk is bad bad bad. Changing your mind is not a scum-tell. In this case I'm inclined to believe it's a town-tell as from time-stamps etc. there's clearly a train of thought.

Is it the reason behind my vote that is "bad bad bad" or the fact that I am voting Monk? Because you were previously voting him (in a post where you said I was town). I also don't know what occurred between your vote on CC and your vote on me that convinced you I was scum. The things I am now accused of are not new revelations, so what specifically made you change your mind about me? My WIFOM defense?

[xvart]

What can't you understand that when I look at your arguments for a hoppster lynch and look at where you say he's being scummy and what you are pulling him up on it's just not there or deliberately misrepresented in order to get you some form of town standing.

You are missing the relevant direct question: was this the reason you voted for me in your first post? If not, why did you vote for me in the first place? The basis (and seemingly sole reason) for voting me is my attacks on Hoppster, which you only disclosed after you unvoted me and said I was leaning town/null. Did you miss the entire argument and my alleged misrepping on your first read through?

[xvart]

First vote based on gut from a quick read of the thread. Then I read you in ISO and because the misrepping cannot be obvious from just one ISO. On reading Hoppster's ISO I saw this and so was switching back and forth reading the argument.

Ooooohhh... The ambiguous gut read. Can't argue with that... And I agree that when reviewing interactions with people you cannot fully judge intent without surrounding context, but in your first read through, if that is something you really believed was true and a scumtell, it should have been obvious at that point, and not only later after ISOing each player individually.

You still haven't answered my question as to the town motivation behind misrepresentation of players and their cases on you.

I'll play along even though the conversation, as I have said, should be distinctly about scum motivations as that is what I have been talking about the entire game. Generally speaking, if something isn't inherently town motivated does not mean it is scum motivated either. Also, for this thought experiment I will assume that I was deliberatly misrepresenting players and their cases (which is far from true considering I got Hoppster up to L-2 without any real accusation of my behavior being as such until recently).

The town motivation of tenacity and deliberate misrepping someone includes: building a lynch mob against someone who is scummy, gathering votes for someone who is scummy, unequivocally expressing reads, behaving in a transparent manner with voting intentions, not waffling on reads, and putting scum in a corner of which it is difficult to back out.

And I'm just flat not reading or responding to xvart's post for the entirity of him being on this game. He's ridiculous.

For the record, you would be dead right now if you hadn't claimed mason. And, I have no problem with you ignoring me because I'm not trying to convince you that you are scum; only everyone else. It's almost better this way because as it only makes you look scummier. Town members would have no problem responding to simple questions about their behaviors, motivations, and intents because it would help everyone else develop reads and adjust their hunting of scum accordingly; especially when shown to have a huge contradiction in game knowledge and subsequent voting. The real reason I think you are avoiding answering the question about your lack of vote on SleepyKrew when you knew he wasn't a mason and you thought his claim was serious is that you don't have an answer and you are hoping it gets swept under the rug because crazy xvart is being crazy.

On a further note, town would want to provide information to help lynch people they think is town. In this case, you think I am scum for my scummy attacks on Hoppster and you. But you still haven't clarified why you agreed with most of my case on Hoppster and then only came around to thinking I was scummy for those cases when you were getting my attention. Your whole argument about me making scummy cases is undermined by the fact that you agreed with most of my case on Hoppster up until I started attacking you, when it became convienent to save yourself to pretend it was a pattern of behavior for me. Since you aren't willing to help make that case and clarify your intentions it appears that you don't really believe that I am scum or you don't really care to get me lynched.

I went back through Panzer's games in the MS achives and looked through every game he played in with masons. I've broken the games into three categories (masons had daytalk, masons did not have daytalk, and games where I couldn't find information either way, either from being abandoned or no role pms posted) The results:

Games with Daytalk Masons

:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 6#p2026056

Unknown

:

http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 38&start=0
http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 7&start=50 - become masons midgame
http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... ilit=mason - abandoned

No Daytalk

:

http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 50&start=0
http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 29#p652029
http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 02#p677702
http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 29#p738129 - no talking at all (I think)
http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 20#p578320
http://www.mafiascum.net/archive/viewto ... 9&start=50

So his claim that daytalking masons, based on his archived games he didn't want to dig through, do not show that daytalking masons are standard by a significant degree.

[xvart]

Forgot one:

The town motivation of tenacity and deliberate misrepping someone includes: building a lynch mob against someone who is scummy, gathering votes for someone who is scummy, unequivocally expressing reads, behaving in a transparent manner with voting intentions, not waffling on reads, and putting scum in a corner of which it is difficult to back out,

and being tenacious, putting excessive effort into the game which might draw a NK as VT

.

[xvart]

xvart: Do you think monk is up for lynch today?

I should hope so. Since it has become apparent that we won't be lynching a claimed mason today, Monk is the most reasonable alternative and most likely to be scum out of the alternative lynch pool.

[xvart]

you know what, although i REALLY dislike xvart twisting my words my gut is telling me sum wouldn't draw so much attention to themselves by posting so many walls in a row...
UNVOTE:

The problem here is that you were voting me for an isolated incident and not the whole collection of "word twisting" that I am being accused of. Once my error was pointed out I struck what I said. And the whole bailing on my wagon due to wall posting being an alignment tell is especially weak since my wall posting has been occurring all game and not a new thing.

[xvart]

while I don't agree with your motivation to misrep, you do agree that you have been, town enough for the moment

I am not intentionally misrepping people, and that wasn't the point I was making. It is an unfortunate byproduct of going for the throat when attacking someone I think is scum. The two times that I have agreed with the assessment that I was taking something out of context I have admitted it and withdrawn the accusation.

You realize that I claimed because of Thomith and not you right?

You mean because I convinced your mason partner that you were scum? He voted you for the case I put together. I had you halfway to the lynch threshold and if you hadn't prematurely claimed I'm confident that I could have got you all the way to lynch. I got Hoppster to L-2 and my case on you is ten times stronger and better than the one I built on you.

Seriously dude; it's a simple question: why are you so gung ho about me twisting peoples words now that I am attacking you and you didn't think that (or at least to the severe degree you claim I am now) when I was attacking Hoppster? This is crux of your case on me and you can't even give me an answer that is so incredibly relevant. Answering this might help serve your cause and strengthen your case on me, something town would want to do.

[xvart]

You mean because I convinced your mason partner that you were scum? He voted you for the case I put together.

What

I posted Panzer's contradictions in Post

826

. Thomith then voted for Panzer in Post 828, saying "it seems panzer has contradicted himself alot about the miller claim and meta." Thomith was voting for his supposed mason partner and attributing it to the case I put forward.

• Lylo hazard
  : I can tell you know that if xvart and I are alive in lylo, I
  will
  be voting for him on the basis that it would destroy me if xvart-scum won this game, and I suspect there are other players who feel this way. So either we get rid of the scum now because he's scum, or we get rid of the town who could potentially lose us the game in lylo.

Not for nothing, but you really cannot attribute the LYLO loss solely on me if you are voting me because you wouldn't want to see me win as scum. If anything, I would think this is a slight town tell in your favor because I don't see scum concocting such a ruse and projecting emotions onto a possible LYLO situation.

• No credibility
  : He has literally zero credibility with what he is saying (for me, at least)... Negative credibility even (if that's possible). For instance, I have reasonable points against Panzer here. xvart agrees with me. That by itself is genuinely enough for me to drop it. Panzer's response aren't great, but I just can't bring myself to follow up simply because xvart agrees with the 'case'.

[/list]

I am (obviously) in complete agreement with the post you linked and is actually the spring board for me harping on Panzer. Seriously, the post you put forward is a scumhunter's goldmine.

I'm going to throw this out there, but I think our lynch pool today should be limited to Monk, Panzer, or myself. Panzer obviously isn't getting lynched today so that leaves Monk or me.

while I don't agree with your motivation to misrep, you do agree that you have been, town enough for the moment
UNVOTE:

VOTE: TheFool

This post is terrible, since a few posts ago I was "starting to look town" and right after that you're moving for a hammer on xvart and pushing for a claim. His posting style hasn't changed all game, what changed your mind now? The fact that Thom also unvoted and you figured the wagon was losing steam, or that once you got the claim the lynch didn't look as useful?

There are other problems with his post outside of what you said but I'll let others see if it has any merits or notices.

[xvart]

See, this shit is why you keep getting lynched. Only the right mix hubris and real, bonified stupidity could ever make someone think that they actually convinced a mason to vote his partner. Use your goddamn head for once.

The reason I almost got lynched in this game and the reason I got lynched in the other game is orders of magnitude different. But you illustrate my point well. I don't believe they are masons so I didn't actually think I got a mason partner to vote a mason partner. I think I got a scum member to bus his buddy. I was speaking from his alleged viewpoint.

Anyways, since Hoppsters post it has become obvious that my involvement is detracting from very good lynches, so I will step back and not post anymore about the people I think are good lynches. My opinions are painstakingly obvious so it shouldn't come as a surprise that I am only interested in voting Panzer or Monk today.

We've had three claims today and I don't think it is in the best interest of the town to run up a lynch on anyone else and force another claim, especially with a deadline that won't be extended. Basically I see the only viable lynches today being Monk or me. I'll let everyone else decide what to do but I will only vote for Panzer or Monk.

[xvart]

xvart: I apologise for being a douche. I am not being sarcastic, I genuinely am sorry, but you being alive just bothers me on a psychological level completely which I can't really explain.

No worries. I understand. No hard feelings.

In the future, when tossing about hypotheticals I suggest you mention that during because when it comes afterwards it can be interpreted as a scumslip, sarcasm doesn't carry well over the internet.

I don't see how it could be misinterpreted considering my past posting on the subject; but I will keep this in mind. It was more a tongue in cheek response to Panzer saying I had nothing to do with getting him to claim, when in fact his "mason partner" voted him (which caused him to claim) citing the case I presented two posts before.

If someone is going to hammer me please let me know first

. I said I wouldn't post anything regarding the wagons but I would like a few parting town thoughts (it will be short) prior to my death.

[xvart]

Since inactivity has come around which essentially means I'm going to be lynched I'll leave you all with this last post:

Panzer:

1. Thought SleepyKrew's mason claim was serious;
   
2. Said that there wouldn't be two mason groups in the same game;
   
3. SleepyKrew was not a member of your supposed mason group;
   
4. You didn't vote SleepyKrew, who for all practical purposes, claimed scum from your point of view.

Based on everything Panzer has said and IF Panzer was town he would have known that SleepyKrew was not, as he claimed, a mason and therefore scum lying. There is no reason why Panzer should have not been voting

anyone but

SleepyKrew, even if he didn't want to out himself as a mason. The icing on the cake is SleepyKrew flipped scum. You can't really get much better than this in terms of finding scum.

Monk:

Case on you: horrendous amounts of misrepresentation, huge song and dance about you being picked on because you're verbose, suggesting we should lynch the masons, which flies in the face of all reason. I have stated this and you haven't seemed to comment on it, more misrep of someone who is actively participating with you. So let me put this out clearly:

What on earth is the TOWN reason for blatant misrepresentation of someone and distraction tactics of going, oh look over there "have a post wall where I've chopped and changed the friggin case on me beyond recognition"

while I don't agree with your motivation to misrep, you do agree that you have been, town enough for the moment
UNVOTE:

VOTE: TheFool

VOTE: xvart

Stop saying words and die scum, even if you're town you are being incredibly antitown and need to be removed from the game

This progression is fascinating. Monk is convinced I am scum. I explain hypothetical reasons for misrepping someone as town and he drops his vote based on me "being town enough for the moment." Then, Hoppster says I need to be policy lynched at which point Monk comes back around and says "even if your town" I need to die. The really crazy part is the fact that he dropped his vote because I provided some town reasons for misrepping someone, whereas he doesn't even discuss or elaborate on the scum motivation behind misrepping (reminder: we had been having a round robin about motivation and intent). I even pointed out his flaw in questioning me regarding the town motivation for misrepping where he never assigned any scum motivation. This voting pattern looks suspiciously like scum voting townie, then he gets called scum for him voting with poor reasons, backs off for terrible reasons, then votes after someone else opens a different door (policy lynch).

And, not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, but I don't recall every saying anything along the lines of me being "picked on" because I have been verbose.

Unfortunately, they are highly unlikely to be scum together due to Panzer being linked with Thomith; unless there are four scum (which might explain Panzer fake claiming mason, but that is pretty tin foil hat). At this point, I would almost argue for a no lynch but I don't see that helping town in the long run because D3 would just be D2 all over again. While I won't self hammer I see that, given my wagon size and the deadline, you should lynch me.

On a final note, I realize that I have alienated people based on my tenacity and for that I apologize. It has obviously had a negative effect that I did not foresee. While I was trying to build lynches on scum I was simultaneously defeating my own cause due to people's reluctance to join me. I'm sorry that I'll likely be unable to help sort out this mess.

Important posts I believed should be reviewed upon my flip:
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p3245575
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p3244051
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p3238376
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p3186127

[xvart]

If they lynch me I'll replace back in!

[xvart]

Or I was joking.

[xvart]

The TheFool voters are probably going to split leaving it 5-5. Whose going to blink first to secure a no flinch?

[xvart]

Note even reading anything after the cop claim due to only seeing victory.

Vote: Thomith

[xvart]

is that a lynch?

One can only hope.

[xvart]

Good game, everyone.

2) Pretty amused that xvart thinks I should have been modkilled. I admit that I have a more liberal interpretation of the rules around ongoing games than most people on site (basically, I think it is okay to reference an ongoing game provided you don't discuss it, since EVERY player can look through another another player's ongoing games and potentially be influenced by them), but it still surprises me

I didn't necessarily think you

should

have been modkilled, I just know that it is a pretty fine line sometimes, especially when directly quoting from ongoing games. It is something I do not think scum would do based on the high probability of it going south or the mod being super strict regarding that rule.

[xvart]

Actually, miller doesn't definitively suggest a cop in the setup. Similar to having a godfather with no cop. A red herring.

[xvart]

Also, sorry about the shit I was pulling yesterday xvart. I want to pretend that was a clever gambit to make sure scum left me alive.

Actually, by that time I had picked up that something was going on; it just seemed out of place compared to us going toe to toe D1 which is why I tried to throw it back in your face, in case you were a power role. I didn't ever expect you to get lynched but found that stuff that might cast a little bit of suspicion on you and keep you alive.

And again, sorry about D1. No hard feelings I hope. Coming into the game I had just busted two scum in another game in subsequent days so my ego was a little inflated with my scumhunting abilities compared to my usual mediocre play, so that had something to do with it. Note to everyone if you really want me to get on your case just go straight for the ad homs, you aren't reading stuff, etc.; although to be fair, I guess I really wasn't reading, but I found it hard to see the motivation behind the posted ISO... Anyways, once someone (I think Hoppster) explicitly pointed out how I wasn't reading it clicked with me because just saying "you aren't reading" doesn't do much for me, especially if I think you are scum, because I read it the exact same way. Anyways, no harm no foul. The good thing about going full court press on someone is it puts everyone else in a tough spot in deciding how to come down on it.

This game reminded me a lot of the game I linked earlier where I steam rolled the town by doing the same thing and fighting tooth and nail for a townie lynch. Although we still won it was really interesting because I was a doctor and a town jailkeeper had already flipped; scum kept me around because they thought I was going to be an easy mislynch and town wouldn't lynch me because they thought my behavior was so pro town despite there being two protective roles. When the part where I obviously didn't read what Hoppster was saying was pointed out at me I took a hard step back and thought about that game and decided I needed to be more careful and not torpedo the town again.

Anyways, I apologize to anyone (and everyone) who was turned off by me, and this game isn't my typical playstyle.

[xvart]

I was stuck into the mason claim because I had breadcrumbed it for later in the game and I was trying to play in a way where Thomith wouldn't vote me, than he was lured in by Xvart's very silly case. I should have just played head up and let monk/CC get lynched.

I think traitor is a pretty difficult role to play, and I think your breadcrumb was a pretty smart way to play it such that scum would want to kill you (I'm guessing if the scum tried to kill you you got recruited instead?) and then you could really flesh it out after having the opportunity to talk to your partners. But when it was joined with the miller stuff it undermined the entire thing since you would have to eventually claim mason with the person that just "counterclaimed" you or hope that Thomith stays out of the limelight.

[xvart]

I was stuck into the mason claim because I had breadcrumbed it for later in the game and I was trying to play in a way where Thomith wouldn't vote me, than he was lured in by Xvart's very silly case. I should have just played head up and let monk/CC get lynched.

I think traitor is a pretty difficult role to play, and I think your breadcrumb was a pretty smart way to play it such that scum would want to kill you (I'm guessing if the scum tried to kill you you got recruited instead?)

No.

Cool.

[xvart]

That's the thing. This Traitor knew us, we didn't know him, he would die if we targeted him.

Oh. I thought the traitor was someone if you tried to kill you recruited him into your QT.

This. It was going according to plan until he voted me, than I just didn't know what to do, so I threw a hail mary.

However, I think it was problematic in the beginning when your breadcrumb was directly tied into a suspicion of one of the mafia partners.