A Gentleman's Game of Guile, Subterfuge, and Intrigue (Fin)

[lord_hur]

Hello, I am most delighted to be in the presence of such refined gentlemen, although it is sad that my joy is marred by such a tragedy. Obituaries have never been my forte, but it certainly grieves me to see three esteemable persons no longer breathing. Lest we diligently find the culprits, more are certain to be added to this list.

My associate, Caboose, had urgent affairs to attend to, and I will effectively replace him from now on. Surely is it unnecessary to affirm that I will answer for all of his participation so far in this investigation.

Without further postponement, let me start with a small case about the one person I suspect most at the moment : Sir Hoppster.

1. Following my experience, rapscallions often comment in the post immediately following a kill, because they had a hand in the act and thus have this problematic of the reason for killing in mind. Which Sir Hoppster did.
2. Furthermore, he did not mention the one thing most peculiar about the night : that there were two murders, and not one. This strikes me as quite unfair unless special mechanics are at work, but of course, the actual killers should not be surprised, and indeed would be less likely to mention it. Also about this mass murder, the modus operandi of tonight's deaths is very different from the first one. I think this might be an important clue to guess their abilities.
3. During his most expansive reaction to the late Twistedspoon, Esq.'s death, the only argument he brings forth is OMGUS voting (thus it must be the most important for him), yet I do not find this reason in his message #51, which he claimed regrouped his reasons for voting him.
4. I do not agree with these reasons : while they are indicative of bad play, I do not think these mistakes are more likely to be made by scum than by town.
5. He seemed quite fast in taking Twistedspoon, Esq.'s claim as a miller for acurate. As for me, someone who lied in the past (he did claim a role he has not) I would not have believed him to be gentlemen-aligned right away (even in twilight). Of course, if he knew Twistedspoon, Esq. to be gentlemen-aligned, this reaction would make sense.

And since this is my best lead as of now, I will :

VOTE: Sir Hoppster

Of course, alleviating these concerns might lead me to rescind my vote.

[lord_hur]

With regard to your point 1, lord_hur, do you consider Sir Hoppster's commenting on the deaths to be as suspicious, when following inHimishallbe's comment, as it might be in isolation? I feel if there is a point to be made here, it is more fairly made against inHimshallibe.

Your observation makes me quizzically raise my brow. Good thing it was my left eye, or my monocle would have fallen. The rather respectable inHimshallibe did not comment on the killers' motivation in tonight's massacre, but promised to scrutinize yesterday's events surrounding the two victims (or so I understood), which is a practice which is in my opinion very useful to real gentlemen. But to be thorough, this comment does not stand well with me for another reason : rogues always want to appear at work for the greater good, and thus are more likely to offer promises of activity. While of course, proper gentlemen serenely present their analysis when it is done.

[lord_hur]

I have not be able to establish preexisting tendancies to the above-mentionned behavior that I noticed twice in this game from Sir inHimshallibe. Actually, his play in this game is strikingly different from what I've noticed in his previous games, both as town and scum. For now, he will remain an esteemable member of our association in my eyes.

Concerning tonight's death, am I the only one thinking both where killed by rapscallions separately, because of their setup ? Indulge a few rambling on my part about this subject.
1. I find it improbable that Sir StrangerCoug was eliminated in the use of his ability, since a bodyguard that would not protect anyone, and that would die in the attempt without injuring anyone would be undeserving of the title of gentleman.
2. As our welcoming (but sadly dead) guest took the effort to assert, the gun is the weapon of choice for gentlemen, and thus a kill from a gentleman vigilante would, in my mind, would not be described as "most foul".
3. The opening scene describes our host's murder as "fashionable". That would indicate that he was actually killed with a gun, and as such that at least one of the imposters is in possession of such a weapon.
Conclusion : I am weighing up the assumption that the imposters might have two ways to carry out their villainy : a safer way which involves a gun, and a second, more risky or restricted one that allows them to murder two persons a night.

Edit : I see Sir inHimshallibe is in line with at least a small part of my argumentation.

[lord_hur]

1. Are you suggesting I was involved in both kills?
2. ... what? A post saying "OMG 2 DEATHS" surely would be a scum-tell by your logic in 1. That makes no sense. Further to this, why should I need to mention that there were 2 deaths when everybody can see that? What everybody

couldn't

necessarily see is that they were odd deaths, which is why I pointed it out.
3. This is badly taken out of context. It's not until here (my ISO #54) that I pick up on Twistedspoon's lack of case/OMGUS vote. That comes after my summary in #51.
4. I fail to see how me interpreting posts differently to you makes me a villain.
5. Where do I say I buy the miller claim in paticular? It was more the "WTF HE'S ACTUALLY TOWN" thing that felt like a punch to the face and prompted twilight rage.

1. If you're indeed a rogue, the fact that your side would have done both kills would be a distinct possibility, yes. I don't know enough about the mechanics yet. Are you suggesting you do?
2. Odd deaths to you. I've never, ever seen discussion about scum motivations profit anyone else than scum.
3. You got me for a second. And then, I noticed that in your message #57, you say that you asked for town games finished by Sir Twistedspoon to check if he always OMGUSed at town. That asking happened in your messages #43 and #45, so well before your summary in #51, and of course your #54. Thus, I think you're lying when you said you did not pick up on his alleged OMGUS vote until then.
4. Villains' desire to mislynch sometimes lead to stated reasons that are of lesser quality. I must trust my own judgement to assess these reasons, and it tells me that the reasons you used are indicative rather of bad play than anything else (I can detail why if you so wish).
5. So, when someone claims VT, then immediately thereafter claims miller, it does not give you the slightest doubt about his alignment? I sincerely hope we meet again, and that I'll be scum.

And no, I'm not fully convinced that you're scum, because your struggle with Twistedspoon looked very much like usual town-on-town fight at the start, but I stated my opinion anyway because as only scum are sure about alignment, waiting till certainty would invariably lead to no-voting. Also, saying i'll remove my vote if convinced is just saying I'm rational and not prone to tunnelling.

[lord_hur]

Lord_Hur's post about Hoppster rubs me a little the wrong way, but Hoppsters reasons for voting him are equally as weak.

My mustache slighty quivers in fury as I read this. If you think my efforts are so laughable, how about you place a ballot that is not blatant unbacked up OMGUS like your predecessor, then?

[lord_hur]

I see you have actually placed a ballot, my mistake. I somehow didn't remember anyone voting other than Sir Hoppster and me. As you did more than the vast majority, I unjustly criticized you. I'm still surprised anyone (other than Sir Hoppster, of course) would call my case weak, though.

I encourage others than Sir Hoppster and Sir ToastyToast to place their ballots with due dilligence, so we can do our duty and execute an imposter. Surely there is enough information in yesterday's minutes to be able to do so.

[lord_hur]

@mod: has replacement ben asked for DemonHybrid and kpaca?

[lord_hur]

Sir Cookiebringer, I could not help noticing this is your first game here. Do you have previous experience about this? Do you have any ballot to cast, or any suspicion to voice? I would very much like to hear more of you, as it is necessary for us to assess your belonging in this fine company. And also so we can find the culprits and exit this mansion alive.

[lord_hur]

I don't think your justification of lynching him was sincere.[/b]

This was pretty obvious for as much reaching as Hoppster did. Town-tell though, imo. TS eventually condemned himself to others.[/quote]
You state this as a fact, Sir inHimshallibe, but I am really curious as to what was so condemning in your eyes.

[lord_hur]

Sir imaginality, am I experiencing visions, or did you really place the ballot that was fatal to Sir Twistedspoon whithout any backing reason? Because I do not classify any kind of emotion as acceptable reason for a real gentleman.

[lord_hur]

Well, I must say I am a trifle embarrassed to have overlooked these two posts.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 1#p2989171
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 3#p2989293

Hoppster: what, exactly, changed?

I must admit you lost me there. What did you see in these minutes?

[lord_hur]

I was not encouraged to vote for Twistedspoon, Esq. until what I perceived to be his ultimate pratfall, which was the whole backtracking of vernacular regarding Information Instead of Analysis.

Yes, that is exactly what I do not understand. The activity you describe, while obviously contemptible, was terrible play for both gentlemen and imposters. Just in the assembly you hosted a week ago, I caught several persons in blatant lies and backtracking, yet they were, except for one, actually innocent. I sure know how infuriating it is (I would personally punch square in the face anyone who lies when innocent, for whatever reason), but such attitude cannot be used, in my opinion, as main cause for a good case. It is a hint about stupidity, much less about alignment.

[lord_hur]

Well, I must say I am a trifle embarrassed to have overlooked these two posts.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 1#p2989171
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 3#p2989293

Hoppster: what, exactly, changed?

I must admit you lost me there. What did you see in these minutes?

Great Scot!

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 6#p2989226

Sir Hoppster takes away his banter with Twistedspoon, Esq. to focus on a policy execution of Sir V. Piraka, and then in his next post decides that's not such a grand idea after all, instead claiming his initial vote on Twistedspoon, Esq. was indeed a better one?

I admit, with the speculation rampant on the Night Killings and this possible link between Sirs Hoppster and V. Piraka, it may be time for our Texan gentleman to... well, to be polite... "eat lead."

Well, I am positively burning to comment, but I will refrain till Sir V. Piraka does.

[lord_hur]

As for your burning ears, do you think I'm going about the Hoppster/v. Piraka situation backwards? I find there to be enough evidence to push Sir V. Piraka, though I guess if that's enough for him, it is also enough to relieve us of Sir Hoppster, as well. Ah, logic.

Alright, I will explain myself now, then. I understood the ballot changing you quoted as a (very ill-concieved) trap for Sir Twistedspoon. That Sir V. Piraka's name appeared was, as I see it, purely fortuitous.

I find the amount of credit you seem to place in my opinion quite surprising. A suspecting gentleman would be concerned for what could be viewed as alignment knowledge.

[lord_hur]

vote: Sir V. Piraka

So let me get this. An unknown (as in role) person voted me , but then switched to TS.

The only way I can explain what you are saying is by thinking that hoppster is scum.

Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for hoppster?

unvote
vote hoppster

Everything you said made me believe you are scum with hoppster and you forgot that we don't know hopster is scum.

Either you have cast the wrong ballot, or I do not follow you at all. Surely you meant to designate Sir inHimshallibe as a potential rapscallion?

Sir inHimshallibe, while I understand your reason for not voting Sir Hoppster, I am sure someone as esteemable as you has another suspect. Surely this was not the best you can do.

[lord_hur]

Hmm, I do see some points corroborating your analysis.

Sir inHimshallibe, what are the "link" and the "speculation" you spoke about in message #449? And if my frowning is not hint enough, I urge you to be frank and straightforward.

[lord_hur]

Thank you. Last question : do you see any argument to refute Sir V. Piraka's assertion about an eventual ungentlemanly relation between you and Sir Hoppster?

[lord_hur]

Thank you. Last question : do you see any argument to refute Sir V. Piraka's assertion about an eventual ungentlemanly relation between you and Sir Hoppster?

Neither of us are scum? I suppose I had covered that one already.

You are one for further explanation, though, so:
If Sir Hoppster is a villain, I will have hitched my cart to the wrong horse, it would seem. To link me to Sir Hoppster is to create me a victim of my conviction.

Alright. Your answers have quite soothed the doubts I have about you. I fear I am always wary when playing with gentlemen of very high experience. They are often very hard to unmask.

[lord_hur]

Spoiler: Response to lord_hur

1. If you're indeed a rogue, the fact that your side would have done both kills would be a distinct possibility, yes. I don't know enough about the mechanics yet. Are you suggesting you do?
2. Odd deaths to you. I've never, ever seen discussion about scum motivations profit anyone else than scum.
3. You got me for a second. And then, I noticed that in your message #57, you say that you asked for town games finished by Sir Twistedspoon to check if he always OMGUSed at town. That asking happened in your messages #43 and #45, so well before your summary in #51, and of course your #54. Thus, I think you're lying when you said you did not pick up on his alleged OMGUS vote until then.
4. Villains' desire to mislynch sometimes lead to stated reasons that are of lesser quality. I must trust my own judgement to assess these reasons, and it tells me that the reasons you used are indicative rather of bad play than anything else (I can detail why if you so wish).
5. So, when someone claims VT, then immediately thereafter claims miller, it does not give you the slightest doubt about his alignment? I sincerely hope we meet again, and that I'll be scum.

And no, I'm not fully convinced that you're scum, because your struggle with Twistedspoon looked very much like usual town-on-town fight at the start, but I stated my opinion anyway because as only scum are sure about alignment, waiting till certainty would invariably lead to no-voting. Also, saying i'll remove my vote if convinced is just saying I'm rational and not prone to tunnelling.

1. I do believe you to be rolefishing here, my good lord_hur.


2. So does this make me scum?


3. There were two parts to his idiocy: a) the fact that he was solely OMGUSing me; b) the fact that he thought I was scum yet did not provide a case.

They so happen to be interlinked in this scenario because he thought I was scum because I was attacking him.

I'll explain my thinking PBP:

Here, it is quite clear that as I realise Twistedspoon is town, the first 'LOLWTF' point to come to my head is the absence of a case.

It is when he then answers that it was because he thought I was obvious enough not to need a case (and this reason is quite blatantly OMGUS) that I then bring up the OMGUS section.

Yes I had wanted to check his meta about the OMGUS, but as confusing as this may seem, it was not to see whether his meta ruled out OMGUS as a scum-tell, but to see if it suggested it as a town-tell. His logic for attacking me seemed to suggest that he would do that all town games, but he didn't.


4. A post-mortem examination of Twistedspoon I would say is useless, given that we now know he is town.


5. "I sincerely hope... that I'll be scum [next time we meet]"

ICUWHUTUDIDTHAR

Nice try.

Also, well done at taking things out of context. I have neither said that I bought the miller claim nor that I didn't. You have argued both ways that I did and I didn't. When actually, I regarded it as null to his alignment.

I do not wish to answer points 1,2, 4 and 5 lest we get caught in a neverending circle, and I find no value in them. The first even gave me a mild chuckle. I accept the explanation you put forth in #3, though.

[lord_hur]

I am pleased to meet you, Sir AurorusVox. Please let me react to your vote :

*

Caboose

#269 looks like a scoundrel using the "burden of proof" soundbyte as a tactic allowing him to weasel out of commenting on the TS carriage...

This one positively baffles me. My esteemed predecessor said he did not at all believe in the case aginst Sir Twistedspoon, what else do you want as a comment? When you have zero doubts about someone, a true gentleman should never cast a ballot on this person unless he is convinced otherwise, and since he does not believe there is a case at all, the incrimating proof must come from someone who thinks he has it. This is only logic, and all judiciary systems in the world's democracies are based on this.

***

Lord_hur

#417 - I react badly to his Hoppster ballot. It seems an easy place for a scoundrel to rally around, based on Hoppster leading a the unfortunate erroneous vengeance on TS, and lord_hur's campaign truly looks like one placed for the sake of ease.
As a sidenote,

ToastyToasts

is not quite so heinous since he mentions all players in his summary.

This is, objectively, sound reasoning as you apparently think Sir Hoppster is the most gentlemanly of us. I have indeed used this reasoning in the past. I'd like to point out, though, that it made me vote for an innocent (the very ladylike, and intelligent, farside22) in my last game, in a situation that was very comparable to ours if Sir Hoppster is indeed a gentleman.

Lord_Hur

#433 also sounds badly in my soul. "How could anyone else call my case weak?!" - is this a challenge to anyone who might "dare" question him?

I was referring to votes like imaginality's hammer on Sir Twistedspoon, that apparently wasn't criticized by others than me despite its utter lack of reasoning. That someone would consider my case with contempt without questioning the many other votes in these minutes who were cast without any reason, or one reason that is rather indicative of bad play, strike me as quite unfair.

You can criticize my reasons, of course. But saying I have less than one, so effectively none, is deeply insulting to my efforts, and definitely matter for a gentlemanly duel.

Lord_hur

#454 - you say that Sir Hoppster's Vezo ballot switch was intended as a misguided trap - what then do you make of him saying that it was in fact not a gambit, in that case?

I'd be very interested. Can you direct me to the minutes? I will comment right after.

Overall, I am quite pleased by your efforts, Sir AurorusVox. Just be aware that the one downside of this type of analysis is that it focuses your attention on the one most active, while those that are less so are able to, as they say, fly under the radar.

[lord_hur]

This one positively baffles me.

He didn't comment on it until pressed further. He used the fact that burden of proof is on the one making the case to excuse this fact, when a simple comment would have sufficed. He maintained a fencesitting position through this tactic until it was commented on and disallowed.

Sorry, but I think you are in the wrong. There was no fencesitting. He clearly said in his message #5 that he did not see any value in Sir Hoppster's attack, and this same #5 is the first time he is asked about his opinion on the case. Personally, I would not comment on a case I do not believe in, unless to attack its author (if there is reason to), particularly if I were making a case of my own (like Sir Caboose). I actually find Sir Hoppster particularly rude for basically saying "your case is crap, comment on mine since it's the best ever". That he received a bashing answer serves him perfectly.

I'd be very interested. Can you direct me to the minutes? I will comment right after.

Tis found here.

You were right. As you asked for what I would derive from the fact that I was wrong about it :
- from your point of view, I may have been lying to cover Sir V. Piraka (but that would be very stupid, since anyone could verify it at any time) ;
- from both yours and mine, Sir inHimshallibe could be guilty of putting too much trust in my affirmation, which can be viewed as alignment knowledge.

[lord_hur]

^^WIFOM

Sigh... where?

[lord_hur]

Do you feel Sir inOneoneshallbe's interest in your doubts about his line of thinking to be disproportionate to the interest he has in his line of thinking? To put the same in a different way, he had allegedly just found a line of enquiry that would lead him to catch an uncouth rapscallion redhanded in the act of most unpleasant trickery and misdirection; and you, sir, had expressed a means to undo his hard work. Would he not then be most intrigued as to what you may possibly have to say? Let us not forget that you yourself were the one who expressed a "burning" desire to speak up. Should there be a trap around, I do not wonder if it is you who are laying it.

---

But enough of that balderdash. My main reason for asking was because you, sir, find Sir Hoppster to be a most probable candidate for a rapscallious vagabond. Thusly, I had to assume that you were using the word "trap" in its most menacing and malevolent meaning - a trap for the poor, innocent TS to fall into and suffer a fate most dreadful, worked at by a Deus Ex Machina to further his ends of lodge-domination. At first I was interested in whether or not the change in view of this noted ballot would garner any change in view of Sir Hoppster. But I have since realised, that a more pertinent question lies at the heart of this issue. Presumably, if Sir Hoppster is thought by you to be receiving his entertainment from killing off the guests of this most exhilarating soiree, then his own comments on the matter would hold no water for you? Your response could have been as simple as "the man is a liar and a beast, he eats his food with a spoon and I see no reason to listen to the misguiding words he most garrulously spouts forth!" And yet you admit your wrongdoings, acknowledge the lack of a link (that to my mind does not exist irregardless!) between you and Sir V. Zo, and deflect upon Sir inOne. You do not mention Sir Hoppster at all, beyond accepting the truthfullness of his intentions as expressed by his own good self. Sir, I find this to be most unnerving, and I hope that my own case of waterfall words has not obscured the cold, hard core of my concerns herein.

Too lengthy; did not peruse

- You find Sir Hoppster to be a most unsavoury rogue
- You claim he has laid out a hunter's trap
- He claims it was no such thing
- You immediately accept his explanation

Sir, I find this most unsatisfying.

That... thing gave me quite a headache. Sorry, but I prefer clearer bullet-points :
- I never said I was sure that Sir Hoppster is an imposter (I even said so in my case's message). If I had to use a scale, I would say he is at about 75%. Much to my dismay, he is still the highest, so I cast a ballot, because true gentlemen have to voice their doubts for the case to advance ;
- I have personally used traps as a gentleman (on at least two occasions in my last game), so, bluntly, cut the "evil" stuff. I'm beginning to think you're trying to play on emotions, which is usually done by rogues.
- Why would he lie about that, even if he is an imposter? Traps are a perfectly valid strategy for both sides. It only serves to provoke reactions that would not have happened. I would agree with you if it was to cover anything incriminating, but it is clearly not the case.

Your comment is equally bad about my answer on Sir inHimshallibe. You do not address at all what I have said. I could have been covering Sir V. Piraka, so he should have verified my deduction's credibility. He did not. It could be oversight (you can't expect town to verify *everything*), or it could be alignment knowledge. Basic logic, nothing else. It could have been a trap, but I did not intend it as such. I am not suspecting Sir inHimshallibe enough.

In this post, I think you are guilty of appeal to emotion and bullshit logic. A reread of your predecessor is in order.

[lord_hur]

You need not be "sure", the point I raise is valid even when you simply suspect the old chap. If you suspect him, it follows that you should suspect the words he says too. For what else does "suspect" mean?

Preposterous. There is no innocence, only degrees of suspicion. In other words, I suspect everyone that has not been proved to be a gentleman. That does not mean I will go and question everything they say, or I would not be able to carry out any investigation, since I could not base any reasoning on anything. I only question affirmations that imposters would have a motivation in altering.

My mistake, it seems that you suspect Sir Hoppster but believe this particular guile to be the game of a gentleman. Very odd indeed. If he is, to your mind, the most suspicious member of our collection, how then could you think his "trap" be intended for the betterment of our lodge? If you think he be a rogue, well then by god, his trickery must also be to that end!

Yes, he did use this trap to obtain Sir Twistedspoon's death. There is, in my opinion, a 25% chance he did it as an honest mistake, and a 75% chance he did it with ill intent. What is your point?

The "evil" banter, my man, is done with the theme in mind. I do not really see what emotion I am appealing to here - fear? I doubt that members of the lodge will quiver at some light-hearted embellishment! I was simply expressing the above in more...shall we say, fanciful, terms.

There was nothing fun, or light-hearted there. You depicted something that is not inherently scummy, as scummy. This is deceit, lying if you prefer, meant to present your... case... in a more favorable light, and to depreive me of the means of my defense.

Trappings may well be perfectly viable for rogues and gentlemen alike. However they must, by definition, be to different ends. A gentleman's trap is intended to catch a rapscallion in the act of most heinous subterfuge; for a vagabond, his trap cannot aimed as such, for he would be catching his own chums. A vagabond's trap must be made with the intent of besmirching a true gentleman's name and honour. Should you be suspicious of Sir Hoppster, you would doubtless of seized upon this latter possibility; or perhaps theorised about a different reason for his quick ballot-shift - distancing, perhaps, or testing the proverbial waters of a Vezo wagon before being drawn inevitably back to TS. The fact you dismiss the scoundrel-motivation behind such shenanigans is also disconcerting.

Again, I viewed the ballot-switching as a trap. Maybe if I did not view it as such, I would have thought about something else, but it is not the case.

Are you suggesting that you ought to suspect him more; or that your lacking suspicions do not allow you to attempt to trap him?

It is as I said, which is not anywhere near either proposition. Thank you for clearly demonstrating (yet again) your uncanny ability to twist words.

My point about Sir inOneshallonebe is that you claim he may have alignment information at work in his considerations; but I claim that his eagerness to hear your opinion is understandable due to the circumstances surrounding his request. I was asking if you agree with this assessment or not, but I see that I needed to clarify my rampant tongue somewhat.

Asking my opinion is understandable. But the argument was on whether or not he should accept my answer this fast.

I will restate my earlier question here: Which emotion do you feel my embellishment has appealed to?
I will add to it: Do you feel that my "logic" is reprehensible on purpose or through misguided zeal?

- I suggest you refer to the nearest encyclopedia : appeal to emotion rarely appeals to any emotion in particular. But you saw immediately what I meant : that you depicted something as dastardly (while it is not so), while linking me to it, and distancing yourself from it (so I appear as evil, and you as good). It is not logic, thus it does not stand well with me.
- This is very hard to answer. It is like you are scraping at everything you can find, regardless of the value of the argument. This is an attitude typically associated with malevolent intent, but in some circumstances, I saw well-intended people using this tactic (much to my dismay, as for lying). So, I will reserve my judgement for now. I need to see more of your interventions, and to reread your predecessor's messages in this light.

[lord_hur]

While I'm on the subject, Lord Hur's assertion that it would be suspicious to believe a miller claim after the claimant had been hammered, even if this had been accurate, is something I disagree with. Had I been present at the time, I would've believed it, since I do not see any merit in lying about such a thing when your true identity is moments away from being revealed.

This is true for gentlemen, not for imposters. I have seen imposters lie to the very end, especially when those lies can benefit their partners (to create a link with a gentleman, for example).

[lord_hur]

Maybe WIFOM isn't the right term for it, I apologize for not explaining. I don't like the whole "Well, if I were you" approach. Also, the part in parentheses, with your assumption that its easily verifiable and that such a claim is stupid.

It was what was asked from me. Nice voting me for answering questions.

So some things I've noticed about lord_hur. I find him to be aggresive in his defense, and not in a positive way. COmes off as frustrated, which I don't think town would be in his situation. Also, the information of lord_hur about inHimshallibe is odd. Are you voicing a suspision? Perhaps some light distancing by someone whose facing a lynch? Same could be said for vezok, but I actually agree with that now.

I am completely and utterly frustrated that people would not see these attacks against me as utterly specious. And about inHimshallibe, again, I was answering a question. Out of duty, certainly not out of sympathy.

By the way, I am dropping flavor completely as of now, because I am not having fun.

[lord_hur]

I am no longer answering to AurorusVox's bullshit, he's just repeating himself. If anyone else want me to answer any of his points, please tell me which one, and I will answer it.

My time will be better employed elsewhere, namely at scumhunting.

@vezokpiraka : 1. Why? 2. Why are you not voting for me, then?

[lord_hur]

Dear lord_hur, if I am repeating myself it is only because you are denying that the very opinions that I have held forth hold any water, when I have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they do. Please respond to the following crystallised points as they at least were direct questions;

If you think that there is a 75% chance that he trapped TS with ill intent, that is also thinking that there is a 75% chance that he was lying about it not being a trap in the first place, surely?

It is as I said, which is not anywhere near either proposition. Thank you for clearly demonstrating (yet again) your uncanny ability to twist words.

I am afraid I was merely asking for confirmation. I do not understand what you are saying in the terms in which you have expressed them. Please, clarify.

Alright, this is fair :
- I can only answer with how I would play as scum. As scum, I would never lie about something as unconsequential as this. So it leads me to think that the chance is low, maybe 10%, for the sake of the argument. So (0x25%+10x75%=) something like 7,5%.
- I meant that I do not suspect Sir inHimshallibe substantially more than the rest.

[lord_hur]

In this post, I think you are guilty of appeal to emotion and bullshit logic. A reread of your predecessor is in order.

its stuff like this that isn't helping at all. Incredibly antagonistic and attempting to undermine arguments with this. Vezok brings up the point that only you and AV are reading the walls. Its true, I'm only skimming, and stuff like this stick out. I don't see AV's arguments as emotional. I'm not voting you for answering a question, I'm voting you because of your defensive attitude and my earlier suspicions of caboose.

Very strange. You're voting me, and yet you're pointing out mistakes to help me? This is not consistant at all...

[lord_hur]

I meant that I do not suspect Sir inHimshallibe substantially more than the rest.

And this is regardless of your point about him seeming to "know" that you are a true gentleman, or what you have referred to as "alignment knowledge"?

This was a minor point, and I only brought it up to answer your question.

Also, I hate to be impertinent here and yet I feel it is my duty to point out that Lord Toasty was saying that your point stuck out as scandalous, not mine, ergo his communique and stated opinions are quite in line. Perhaps you can reread the message in question, and tell me if you still think he is acting in your defence?

He pointed out a mistake, thus encouraged me not to do it again. This is help. Your ability to ask questions about the most obvious things never ceases to amaze me. The worst part is, I cannot peg it as scummy. No one, scum or town, would logically do this.

[lord_hur]

These past couple of pages have been stodgily unappetising and difficult to digest. I feel the best way to increase the illumination is to build on the pressure being applied, and to that end,

Vote: lord hur

to add weight to this wagon.

This is the second time imaginality hops on a wagon for no reason at all. At least this time, it wasn't a hammer... Well, I guess he won't be challenged about it again, except by me, so I metaed him.

I have read his last three games, and, besides his amazing ability to not catch scum (14 days total, no scum caught at all, and he had a town-aligned investigation role every time, though once it was one-shot), I noticed his votes are quite often unbacked-up at all.

So again, terrible play, but no reason to vote him. This is very frustrating.

[lord_hur]

lord_hur: Is TT's 'inconsistency' villainous?

I was waiting for :
1. rereading him and his predecessor
2. his reaction or explanation

1 is done, 2 is pending.

[lord_hur]

In this post, I think you are guilty of appeal to emotion and bullshit logic. A reread of your predecessor is in order.

its stuff like this that isn't helping at all. Incredibly antagonistic and attempting to undermine arguments with this. Vezok brings up the point that only you and AV are reading the walls. Its true, I'm only skimming, and stuff like this stick out. I don't see AV's arguments as emotional. I'm not voting you for answering a question, I'm voting you because of your defensive attitude and my earlier suspicions of caboose.

1. I find Caboose's intervention very logical and on point (even about Hoppster, town vs town fight was my first reaction). Please tell me an example or two of his sayings that you find worthy of a vote.
2. Explain "defensive attitude", please. Especially with regards to the wall of death I have been subjected to.

[lord_hur]

He pointed out a mistake, thus encouraged me not to do it again. This is help.

Dear lord! This would mean that any time one would make a case on another, he is helping them!

Incidentally, does this mean that you accept the accusation as a highlighting a valid mistake that you have made? That it was indeed you who were being "Incredibly antagonistic" and "attempting to undermine [my] arguments with this"?

That part sounded like advice to me, not like part of a case.

Yes, I am antagonistic, mafiascum is not fairy land, and of course, I'm asserting that your arguments are devoid of logic, depriving your attacks of any value. Anything else?

[lord_hur]

But to undermine an argument does not necessarily disprove it. It is merely here an

attempt

to make something look weak when it may in fact not be. Moreover, you have admitted that your doing so was a mistake.

Yes, I knew that it would make me look scummy, but I posted it anyway because it represented what I felt.

[lord_hur]

But why, sir, would it make you look rougish if it was, in fact, a correct proposition?

It can be viewed as OMGUS.

[lord_hur]

Good sir, that isn't the accusation that TT has levelled at you. He has found a different reason for recoiling from your post.

Dear lord...
This is what you asked me :

But why, sir, would it make you look rougish if it was, in fact, a correct proposition?

You didn't ask me what was the accusation was, you asked me what I thought would make me look bad.

It sure looks like you're not taking much care whether your attacks have a purpose or not. As if you're flinging mud around and seeing what sticks.

[lord_hur]

Yes, I knew that it would make me look scummy, but I posted it anyway because it represented what I felt.

Notice "I posted it"? "It" can only refer to what I have posted in the first place, not to that accusation of undermining.

And with this, I stop answering your bullshit questions (unless, again, someone else expresses an interest in one of them). Rereading with this constant yapping in the background would try a tibetan monk's patience.

[lord_hur]

Alright, here is the situation of my reflexions :

I am quite concerned by the lack of logic behind all reasons used to lynch Twistedspoon, making it quite difficult to discern bad play from scumminess. It forces me to make complete rereads of the persons I suspect to glean meager information.

I am first going to assess the persons that were on his wagon, as they always are my first suspects.

- Hoppster : the more I think about it, the less Hoppster as scum makes sense. His aggressiveness against someone he would know is town, would be like painting a big, red target on his forehead. It takes a lot of guts to do this. Or stupidity, but Hoppster sure is not. Also, the things I noticed against him can be weighted against his largely more-than-average activity. 50% scum (and yes, vote me for backtracking or anything else, I don't care).

- kpaca/AurorusVox :

kpaca : Lots of fencesitting. He voted Twistedspoon for a lousy reason. Does not scumhunt, as he is focused nearly entirely on Twistedspoon. The only smart thing he says is in his post #11 (last before inactivity), and it was in his own defence. He is definitely a lurker, so inherently hard to evaluate.
Conclusion : below average reasoning, lurking, uncertain experience make for a difficult evaluation. His lynching vote looks quite bad, but it can also be explained by the aforementioned tendencies (especially tunnelling).

AurorusRex :

Meta - list of all games in which he used walls of doom :

Scum :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

Town, 100% mislynch rate :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

Town, 66% mislynch rate :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

I'm surprised, as it is not that often. There are more games as scum than as town, but only marginally so. He seems to have a very bad mislynch rate, though, largely caused by the fact that in all these games as town, he's always been on *every* wagon. That he was on Twistedspoon's can then also be explained by his below-par town play, not only by him being scum.

From his meta, he looks quite smart, so I have trouble making sense of these walls of nonsense, except as an overconfident scum. Judging from his posts when he wins as scum, he looks quite smug about his abilities as scum (with reason, it seems), so I can picture him jumping on my wagon and never letting go, confident in his ability to grind me with his walls of text despite his arguments wearing thin.

Overall : 70% scum.

- vezokpiraka : VI. There is nothing to learn from him, and we will never know his alignment until he's lynched, since if he's town, he'll never be NKed.

- Apokalyptika/Reya Cookiebringer :

Apokalyptika : her vote is inherently the one that looks the less bad of the bunch, looking rather sincere though the reasons are still quite weak, as she herself said for part of it (which gets her some townish points). She vote hops quite a bit, but I could not detect any scummy intent behind it. Her posts are rather logical. She also voiced her doubts about Twistedspoon before, so it doesn't look that opportunistic.

Reya Cookiebringer : lurker.

Overall : 30% scum.

- imaginality : he asked for vezokpiraka's policy lynch. Since it's a rather frowned upon practice, and that he's experienced enough to know this, it strikes me as rather townish. #10 strike me as bullshit logic. kr0b's answer was perfectly logical and understandable (and how I understood his use of perhaps in the first place), but imaginality deformed it and showed it as illogical.

But the real shock comes from his vote on Twistedspoon. He defended Twistedspoon in #11 and #12, but then hammers him, for no reason at all and without any warning. The only logical motivations I can find are all anti-town :
1. it is a mislynch, which is an important goal for scum
2. the ending of day 1 deprives town of useful information

And yet, it is so illogical for scum AND town to play like this! Or maybe not so illogical, since no one but myself confronted him about it, and he could think he would get away with it, given the quality of the other votes on Twistedspoon.

@imaginality : why did you do this?

I will cast my vote after he answers.

Oh yes, I see some people (ToastyToast comes to mind) linking me with other persons as alleged scumbuddies. I'll be happy to make an analysis about them next, if they want.

[lord_hur]

Incidentally, one of those previous parlour games that you've referenced as me belonging to a gentleman's class (I've asterixed it) is in fact a game in which I paraded as a scandalous rogue. I find it most interesting that the following gentleman's games didn't make it onto your list, considering that there are some glorious examples of verboseness contained within them:

Damn it, you have a wiki page! All this time lost skimming the 108 pages of your total user posts...

Newbie 961 had no wall of text, and DEFON isn't standard scum vs town. I corrected the other things.

Scum :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

Town, 100% mislynch rate :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

Town, 66% mislynch rate :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

Pretty much unchanged, and there is certainly no "skewing" to speak of.

It's still uncanny how you're great as scum, but can't find scum if your life depended on it. I mean, even in this one game you did vote for scum, it was because you were directed to do so by someone else who caught scum and told everyone, in 1 inch thick letters, that he would turn on anyone not voting for the scum he caught. There is one another game in which you voted for scum (newbie 961), but the guy actually suicided to fulfill his objective.

Well, this doesn't help me determine if you're scum, since you nearly always, whatever your faction, vote for town.

That he was on Twistedspoon's can then also be explained by his below-par town play, not only by him being scum.

What does this mean? I am positively baffled, as I wasn't around yesterday to cast a ballot for TS's immediate execution or otherwise.

Oh yes, sorry, it was your predecessor. One less thing in your favor, then.

By the way, who's guilty in your opinion, besides myself?

[lord_hur]

1)Caboose didn't do anything worthy of a town read. Starts with a vote on Hoppster (note that I think u guys are scum together. Ever since AV came in your case/thoughts on Hoppster have completely disappeared. So has hoppster)
odd stance on vezok: he's useless but I don't understand the votes on him
called TS null-town, avoiding the issue because he knew that TS was, in fact, town.

1. This is not an argument, so I can't argue.
2. vezokpiraka is a VI. There is no point in voting a VI for being a VI.
3. As difficult for you as it may be to contemplate, town actually CAN have good reads.

2. 432, 472, 479(the deeply insulting part), 490(BS logic),499

Does this sufficiently answer your questions?

No. How I see it, only 1 of these instances qualifies, and frustration caused it.

something else I noticed when finding exaples: buddying with inHim, my other scum read. 453

Reread it. I was asking him to take a stance, as he rarely did day 1.

[lord_hur]

AurorusVox asking for a claim, why am I not surprised?

imaginality ignored my question as well. I guess he's not reading the game at all. So I metaed him and the only time he did this (hammer without any reason day 1), he was scum, and actually won the game. It is one of the only two occasions he was scum, and in the other, he was on the mislynch wagon from the beginning.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12707

This is 100% of the time he was in position to do this as scum (also, he won the game), and he never did it in his 15+ games as town.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: imaginality

It is my best lead for now, though quite tied with AurorusVox.

Oh yes, about that crappy defensiveness accusation, meta me. I was like this, if not worse, in my last game (and also in my older games as town, but they are on the old forum).

[lord_hur]

Hello jilynne1991.

Your predecessor was very hard to assess because of his low participation, to the point that he's a blank slate for me.

So I'm looking forward to your analysis, whatever it will be on.

[lord_hur]

Well, it is customary to provide links, or quotes when you accuse someone of something. So he can, you know, defend himself...

Oh yes also, since you're new, I'll give you this advice : always try to determine the intent behind the fact. Who is more likely to do this, scum or town? What would scum gain in pulling this stunt?

Mistakes or bad play do not denote scumminess (actually, you'll find, on the contrary, that scum are usually more attentive, so do less mistakes), scummy intent does. Voting someone for bad play is how Twistedspoon got mislynched day one, and is by far, in my opinion, the leading reason for mislynches in general.

This is coming from someone who has a scum lynch rate of nearly 2/3 (I'm not bragging, just saying I think I'm now experienced enough to give some general advice like this).

[lord_hur]

To lord_hur: did imaginality's TS hammer have scummy intent?

I found 2 reasons for scum to do this, none for town. Meta indicates he did it as scum, never as town. So yes, I think it has scummy intent.

[lord_hur]

Sorry for the double post, but I also think imaginality unvoted so he could hammer me when anyone else puts me at L-1. It would leave them, day 4, at 2 vs 4 (double LYLO).

Maybe he even thought he could get away with it, seeing that no one criticized him except me last time.

By the way, if the second kill was by a vig, he should do it again night 2, as it actually increases our chances even if he kills town.

[lord_hur]

Also, I'm scared that Lord_hur might not be scum.

I don't think she'd be able to fake this, given she doesn't seem to understand basic concepts like vote backing-up. She's likely town. And I'm really, really desperate about this game. Clueless town, terrible scum hunters, lurkers, VI... We got 'em all...

Speaking of meta and terrible scum hunters, that reminds me : if/when I flip, AurorusVox's suspicion of inHimshallibe and Toastytoast, added to my confirmation, will make them likely to be town, given his incredibly bad meta as scum hunter. That's why I asked him his suspicions, earlier.

[lord_hur]

Two words come to my mind, but they distinctly lack class.

[lord_hur]

Also, I'm scared that Lord_hur might not be scum.

I don't think she'd be able to fake this, given she doesn't seem to understand basic concepts like vote backing-up. She's likely town. And I'm really, really desperate about this game. Clueless town, terrible scum hunters, lurkers, VI... We got 'em all...

Speaking of meta and terrible scum hunters, that reminds me : if/when I flip, AurorusVox's suspicion of inHimshallibe and Toastytoast, added to my confirmation, will make them likely to be town, given his incredibly bad meta as scum hunter. That's why I asked him his suspicions, earlier.

Sorry, but I don't understand very much, could you clarify the following. (Yes, I'm clueless, but hopefully I can learn all the concepts and everything quickly.)
1) Vote backing-up is backing up your vote, right? But, like, how?
2) What's wrong with role claiming if you're town?
3) Um, VI's are vigilantes right?
4)

Speaking of meta and terrible scum hunters, that reminds me : if/when I flip, AurorusVox's suspicion of inHimshallibe and Toastytoast, added to my confirmation, will make them likely to be town, given his incredibly bad meta as scum hunter. That's why I asked him his suspicions, earlier.

Sorry, I don't get any of this. Could you clarify?

5) Also, what do you mean by being desperate about this game?

1. You say (or quote) which post(s) you find damning. By the way, if you want to do so now as training, I'll show you where you were wrong (I'll flip town soon, so you'll know that my advice was genuine).
2. It gives info to scum. For example, if I were to claim cop, I would surely die next night, while if I were to claim vanilla townie, they would kill someone else, increasing the chance a power role dies.
3. VI = village idiot, vezokpiraka in this game. VI never play logically, whatever side they are on. They are effectively scum's allies as they make town's life a nightmare since they are unreadable and unhelpful, and as such, you have to endure them until you lynch them, since they are never NKed. That's why some people think we should lynch them day one as a policy, sacrificing one town (from the NK) to get rid of them.
4. AurorusVox's meta says about 95% of the people he votes for (as scum and town) are town, since he's a terrible hunter. There is no hint that he would do better in this game. Thus, the two players (3 if you include me, but I'll be confirmed town soon) are more likely to be town than the average.
5. I think town will lose this game, because of the terrible (in my opinion) players listed (unless we're lucky and they're all scum, but I very much doubt it).

[lord_hur]

Unreadable = you can never know if they are scum or town (unless a power role investigates them).

[lord_hur]

Oh, ty! I'll unvote you now, because I don't want someone to hammer or something, and you seem too helpful to be scum. I don't think scum would want to be helpful to the town.

You should not rely on this. I could (still can, from your point of view) have been scum trying to buddy up with you. But you know you can trust my advices, as if you meta me (especially the newbie games where I acted as tutor), you will find that I never, ever given any advices for any other reason than helping.

Also, I don't really get the concept of flipping town or scum. Does that mean your orignally suspected to be town or scum, and then you change to the other side and have proof of it?

Flipping is dying. When you die, your alignment and role are revealed, and if the person flips town, you then know that you can trust everything he said, as good town do not lie (except sometimes, in very limited way designed to fool scum, but it's dangerous and you're not good enough for this yet).

Sorry for tripleposting! Actually I can't find anyone at the moment to do a case on, since right now I don't feel like anyone's scum. If your not too busy, could someone examples of valid scumtells or valid reasons I could vote someone from this game? Please?!?

Do look at the lynch of Twistedspoon, but for what NOT to do! There was not a single good reason given for voting him.
Valid scumtells all revolve around one concept : scum motivation. Why they are doing this, why they are not doing this, what do they have to gain, etc. This is the one and only basis that got me this scum lynch ratio, which is 3 times higher than average.
But there are literally tons of scumtells that you can use (this is a very, very incomplete list) :
- weak voting : scum have to obtain mislynches, but they know that the persons are town, so they have trouble finding good reasons for voting them ;
- past motivation (meta) : what they did in the past, and might want to, consciously or not, do it again ; I used it in my last game to nail Battousai, if you want to check it out ;
- avoiding voting for scum mates (but you have to kill one scum to use it) ;
- opinion changes about people : they have no reason to form suspicions since they know who's who, but they have to appear having some ; so changing their stated opinion about someone without explanation is very suspect ;
- overdefensiveness : they are more interested in staying alive than finding scum, while town would sacrifice themselves willingly to nail one scum.

Why are you so eager for us to lynch him?

Good, you're asking for his motivation. But in this particular case, I doubt you'll get any reasonable answer. He'll just say he's tired of the discussion, or something like it.

[lord_hur]

Instead of trying to turn the tables on my case through the game itself, he is now pointing to inaccurate "meta" information, which is nowhere near as reliable as the information he could garner from this game itself. He is engaged in a terrible dance wherein he will refuse to call me scum because that would ruin his precious meta case. He also ignores my rebuttal to his heinous accusations, and does not stop to consider what an "average" % of scum votes over a player's entire game history would be. I do not have that data to hand, but I can presume it would not make favour his case.

I'd say I missed you, but then I'd lie. Okay, I'll answer, but just this once.

- I only count lynches that went through (both for me and you) : it's already tedious enough to count as it is ;
- You're 70% scum in my opinion, so cut that bullshit about "dancing" ; and it doesn't ruin my meta, since you vote for town both as town and scum ;
- Of course I ignored it, or I'd be knee-deep in another bullshit tornado. You asked about my claim, whatever circonvoluted way your brain found to express it.

I'm tired of your flinging crap in my general direction, but more than that, it's the inability of others to see through it that infuraties me. They just skimmed through all of it, blaming me as well as you for bringing those useless arguments on the table.

I really, really hope that you're town, actually, because then I know that, once again, you will have mislynched.

[lord_hur]

Moreover, your selection of data is skewed. If I am killed off N1 in a number of games as a gentleman, what's the average for scum lynches on D1? What about anti-town third parties, do they not count? If I vote for someone but the rest of town do not follow it through, and that person happens to be scum, why does that not count in my favour? If I vote for someone and then convince myself I am wrong, does that not speak favourably for my gut instinct?

No, sir. Your meta analysis has no merit for it is nowhere near objective enough.

I'm not going to let you drag me into a wall war again. My method is valid, and you're welcome to bring a different set of data (based on votes, not lynches) if it's so important to you. For someone who said meta is near worthless, you sure are interested in it...

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an argument against me that I wasn't able to refute.

[lord_hur]

@Hoppster : Why are you unvoting?

[lord_hur]

What does it mean when you "bus" someone? Vezok...is getting on my nerves. His content and participation isn't exactly what I'd call up to par, but for the moment, I'm not ready to vote him just yet.

"Bus" is short for "pushing under the bus" : scum voting for other scum, even lynching them, so they appear less suspicious themselves. It's a very good tactic if used well.

This is also opinion, not only advice : vezokpiraka is absolutely incapable of playing logically or helpfully, even when he's town. He's even (in)famous for not using a town power he had (that was really easy to use), leading his team to defeat. As much as I myself don't like his play, voting him is not better than voting at random, since he's equally unhelpful as town and scum. There is no point in voting VI for being VI. Frustrating, isn't it?

But as I said, this is only my opinion of him. Your own opinion is what matters here.

[lord_hur]

Oh, and another advice : you're taking an awful lot of games for a newbie. You should start with one or two, to be able to devote enough time to them. Playing a game

properly

is very time-consuming : the more games you take, the less helpful you are to your team in each.

[lord_hur]

@lord_hur: although I completely agree that vezokpiraka is an infamous player, its important to remember that he has the exact same probability as anyone else at being scum. What do you think is the main difference between his VI play and his scum play?

I don't think he does it on purpose, and scum tells (at least, the ones I use) assume that players behave rationally, which VIs do not appear to be. Thus, VIs are typically a black box for me. If there is a difference in play, I cannot see it (and I'm curious as to how anyone would).

[lord_hur]

lord_hur, who do you think should be lynched tomorrow if you indeed flip town today?

You never answered this. I'm asking for motivation speculation. Who on your wagon comes off as the most opportunistic? I had another question but I totally forgot

Sorry. The one vote I like the *least* is AurorusVox's. I don't like gut votes, as there is no way to determine is they are genuine or not, so they are utterly anti-town. And on top of that, he brought it up well after his vote. So basically, i can picture it being : "oh well, I have no reason to vote for this guy except that he's being attacked by everyone, so I'll just latch at him with walls of doom until he gives in. Damn, he's resisting, I need to find something else. Hmm, he brought up my history of town voting... *browses* yeah I remember, I let that guy off the hook because my reasoning sucked, but I was right at first! Hey, I can use gut voting as an excuse, it makes total sense given my history, and you can't unprove it anyway!".

Town (at least, as I play as town) would have thought they have not enough against me, and, at least, looked for an alternative wagon. Only scum would stick to a very promising wagon with teeth and claws, changing completely their voting reason on the way (especially for something as despisable as gut voting), and tunnelling as if there was no other player.

By the way, your own vote is the only one I found any value in (because overdefensiveness is a known scumtell). Given my meta as town, which shows my tendancy to latch very hard (admittedly, maybe too hard) at people voting me for reasons I find unreasonable, do you think it is still a good reason to vote me? If it is, can you explain me precisely what scum intent I would have?

Also, why did you feel the need to ask about my claim, when no one else was expressing any intent in voting me?

Other notes: I am noticing a large decrease in activity from AV and Hoppster (post length, general content)

AurorusVox called it. I am myself more concerned about inHimshallibe and Reya Cookiebringer.

[lord_hur]

@Feysal: You seem to be quite uncommitting in this game. Only one vote so far... Who are you suspecting, and why?

[lord_hur]

1) I have no knowledge of meta and feel that it is an inadequate argument to lie on it solely. Scum who knows their town meta are going to try to make it identical. I similarly have a habit of getting into a "survival" mentality when town, but its not enough to base a town read on me.

You left out the most important question : what would be my scummy intent?

2) I feel you ARE being more active, and I like that, but your vote on imaginality came at a weird time, especially if you have strong suspicions on AV. Your scumhunting isn't strong enough,and if the part of your defense sayin "hey, im town because AV sucks at scumhuntin" was a bad move. I also see a few attempts at buddying. For example, as nice as helping jilynne is, we can ultimately agree that she needs to play through a game to get a true picture of improvement. In other words, the whole teaching thing easily manipulated her into changing her vote.

I guess the bottomline is that despite your meta (which I am unaware if its indeed true), your predecessors activity, the overdefensiveness, light buddying, and case formation all outweigh your pro-town activites (being active)

- My scumhunting isn't strong enough? God, I feel like I'm doing the only scumhunting that is not completely focused on me! No one but me even tries to find an alternate wagon!
- I'm FUCKING furious to see my efforts at helping newbies called out at attempts to get any advantage. This would be utterly dishonorable. Newbies have to learn, and if your frame of mind was mainstream, no one would help them at all. Shame on you for doing this. That reminds me of that one time when I contemplated farside22 gaining extra info from normal use of her limited mod powers. I immediately and deeply apologized to her, even before she confronted me about it. I suggest you do the same. Insulting someone in this manner is very grave to me.
- I didn't hide my suspicion of both, and imaginality is up there as well, and slightly ahead. Can't see what's strange about this.
- I never said I'm town because he's bad at scumhunting. More importantly, trying to look good is a scummy frame of mind, so why would you vote me for not doing it? This is the second time you do this, and I'm beginning to think that you might be yourself in this frame of mind. You know, attempting to look good.

3) I felt that the game was stagnating, so a claim might provide a time to look for reactions. Also, I always claim at L-1 in case some idiot decides to hammer.

Can you tell me in which games you did this?

[lord_hur]

*facepalm* I feel like an absolute idiot...I was wondering if I was being manipulated, but then I decided he was too helpful to be scum. Also Lord_hur's last post just made me start thinking that's he's leaning town, and now...I have no clue.

This is the first thing I told you when you said you trusted me:

Oh, ty! I'll unvote you now, because I don't want someone to hammer or something, and you seem too helpful to be scum. I don't think scum would want to be helpful to the town.

You should not rely on this. I could (still can, from your point of view) have been scum trying to buddy up with you. But you know you can trust my advices, as if you meta me (especially the newbie games where I acted as tutor), you will find that I never, ever given any advices for any other reason than helping.

You should ignore my advices for determining my alignment. It is just not relevant.

No one with any amount of honor would manipulate a newbie with advices. It is the first and most important rule for tutors (called IC) in newbie games.

[lord_hur]

@lord_hur: I'll respond to the other stuff later. I meant no offense. I mean, I helped her a bit too. I'm just saying that teaching someone during a game is basically what got her to change her read.

And I *immediately* told her that she should not do it.

[lord_hur]

I'm not blaming anyone, I was foolish and stupid, I get it.

No. You made a mistake all newbies make. There is a huge difference. If you don't do again, you're not foolish and stupid.

[lord_hur]

Just out of curiosity, do you guys really live in different countries like France and Finland and places in Europe?

I missed this. Yes, I'm french living in France, and Feysal is living in Finland (I read it in his meta).

[lord_hur]

I'm FUCKING furious to see my efforts at helping newbies called out at attempts to get any advantage. This would be utterly dishonorable. Newbies have to learn, and if your frame of mind was mainstream, no one would help them at all. Shame on you for doing this. That reminds me of that one time when I contemplated farside22 gaining extra info from normal use of her limited mod powers. I immediately and deeply apologized to her, even before she confronted me about it. I suggest you do the same. Insulting someone in this manner is very grave to me.

As much as I agree with what you're saying, the tone of this post is reading to me as scum who feels he has been caught out for a completely wrong reason.

Oh yes, and what is that right reason then? And what makes you feel it is not genuine?

Enough vague statements I cannot answer to, give me facts, analysis and arguments.

Also, if you're town, go to hell. I have rarely, if ever, been more sincere in my life than when I wrote this.

[lord_hur]

Holy... I was not accusing you, I was asking questions to make sense of one incredibly imprecise statement! You're voting people for asking questions now?

And you didn't answer my perfectly logical and sensible question, so I will reiterate : if it is not that my intent didn't match my words (which, by the way, was the most logical interpretation of your accusation, especially because of alternatives not making any sense to me, see below), what makes you say it is more likely to be made by scum? Because :

(ie. you were frustrated at being caught as scum, but you felt that the reason that you were caught as scum is completely ridiculous).

I am (utterly) frustrated, as town, for being voted for completely ridiculous reasons. You will have to explain me the very, very subtle difference...

[lord_hur]

1) I have no knowledge of meta and feel that it is an inadequate argument to lie on it solely. Scum who knows their town meta are going to try to make it identical. I similarly have a habit of getting into a "survival" mentality when town, but its not enough to base a town read on me.

You left out the most important question : what would be my scummy intent?

You don't want to die, lol. Its not a valid defense.

Town also don't want to die. You still fail at saying what in my behavior makes me more likely to be scum.

- My scumhunting isn't strong enough? God, I feel like I'm doing the only scumhunting that is not completely focused on me! No one but me even tries to find an alternate wagon!

what's your case on imaginality? 509 (you find his hopping sketch but say its no reason to vote him), 524 (I interpret this as a null read; also, the day went on for sufficient time), 540(1 scum game is not meta)

We'll see about this when he flips, I guess. Which is at the end of the game, since you all let him get away with the most ridiculous things.

This is what it looks like when reading your slot today. "Hoppster is scum. Wait, ppl don't like me, I'm gonna be nice and gentlemanly when responding to inHim, but AV's giant post attack deserves RAGE. DEFEND. DEFEND. USUK. Oh, btw, I don't like imaginality."

And? Except your out-of-line remark about inHimshallibe (which isn't based on anything), there is nothing town wouldn't do, or that scum are more likely to do.

Many games that I've been L-1 are not completed, but there is Cowboy Bebop

You claimed your name, but resisted claiming your role, and was bitter when you did it. Thus, you know that early claiming is bad. Thus, you are scummy for asking it.

[lord_hur]

Also, do you really need to cuss? I don't think you can achieve anything by cussing that you can't achieve but speaking with more class and using normal words. Sorry, you're cussing kind of bothers me, especially since this is just a game. Go have a coffee or something and take a break.

Sorry about the (very light) cussing.

No, none was directed at you. I have not much to say, really, I also thought that gut reading could be a valid voting method when I started.

Advice time : it really, really is not, for one reason : gut reading is completely anti-town. Since it is unverifiable (we're not mind readers), it lets scum "blur into the background". Picture this : if everyone just said "he's scum, just because I feel it", we'd have absolutely no way to determine which vote is sincere, and which is not. Lynching would be random, and town would always lose. Thus, you should never, ever use gut reading unbacked-up with reasoning. Maybe it makes you feel good, but all town suffers from it.

[lord_hur]

Thanks, tomorrow, when I don't feel like I'm going to fall asleep on the computer, I'll point out exactly which posts made me feel like you're anti-town. Now, it's not so much for me that it's a gut feeling, it's more, the "I'm too lazy to do it" feeling for me.

Good. I am looking forward to your first case.

[lord_hur]

Excuse me, but I've been making cases on you along with my vote. The ONLY person who was "attacking" you at the time I voted was Hoppster. This is

extreme

misrep - how can my vote be "gut" but also a "wall"? Are you honestly saying all I said in those walls was "Yeah, it's gut"? Really? You're saying those entire "Walls of Doom" contained zero reasons? By jove, you've basically nailed your own coffin shut.

Exactly. Zero reasons. I affirm every reason you gave was crap, and I never lie as town.

And I said gut, because you said you would lynch me no matter what. It is illogical, so it is gut (or scummy intent, but it's hard to tell one from the other).

Where have I said I need to find anything else to justify my vote? My vote was justified before you misrepped my voting history. And my reasoning never sucked when I voted scum (how could it?) - I said that I WIFOM'd my way out of it. I.e. I read him as scum, then thought about it too much and argued my self away (this is my common problem as town - Feysal might recall I caught a lot of flak for arguing both sides in SAIII). I'm tunnelling now because I'm trying to change that. Dogged persistence, what ho!

Tunnelling is anti-town. Period. Good town always look for alternatives, because they know that they can be wrong. Saying you're sure that someone is scum is immensely presomptuous. I myself typically vote for 2 or 3 persons before I commit to a lynch (mainly because I'm always very active, so I analyze and vote fast).

[lord_hur]

@Hoppster. What a steaming pile of shit. Okay, let's dig :

Holy... I was not accusing you, I was asking questions to make sense of one incredibly imprecise statement! You're voting people for asking questions now?

Here's what you said earlier:

Oh yes, and what is that right reason then? And what makes you feel it is not genuine?

This is a

CLEAR

implication that I do not find your reaction genuine. I said no such thing.

It is a genuine reaction from scum who feels he has been caught for a terrible reason. I know the feeling, and it's a bloody awful one, paticularly when the reason is incredibly illogical.

You are further misrepresenting me by saying that I am voting because you asked a question. I never mentioned or implied anything of the sort.

1. You're reapeating yourself, and not trying to explain or answer me in any way.
2. Again your misrepresentation crap, just like with Twistedspoon. You never learn, do you :

Oh yes, and what is that right reason then? And what makes you feel it is not genuine?

This is what you voted me for, and this is a question.

They are not the same. They will, most of the time, react differently.

It's difficult to describe, because it's all to do with the way you're saying things, and when I try to type it out I look like an utter idiot. However, in my head, it makes sense. I suppose it's elaborate gut.

I have never had a hard time describing something like this. Town would have said this, but you said that.
And it is basic, despisable gut. Of course, it thus deprive me of any chance to defend myself.

However, your whining "OH BUT I WASN'T ACCUSING YOU I WAS JUST ASKING QUESTIONS" response makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside about my vote. You quite clearly were not just asking questions, and your charade at playing the naive child feels very feigned.

I was asking questions, and just this. Your attack was unmotivated, and I wanted to know what it was exactly. There is no way anyone sane could read it differently.
There was also frustration, but just like in all my posts in the last week of this joke of a game.

[lord_hur]

Exactly. Zero reasons. I affirm every reason you gave was crap, and I never lie as town.

I offered PLENTY of reasons...

Whatever. I just said this to clarify my stance about you when I flip town.

I also never said I'd lynch you no matter what. Keep misrepping.

Yes you did :

I said that I WIFOM'd my way out of it. I.e. I read him as scum, then thought about it too much and argued my self away (this is my common problem as town - Feysal might recall I caught a lot of flak for arguing both sides in SAIII). I'm tunnelling now because I'm trying to change that. Dogged persistence, what ho!

You do say there that you will not change your vote for whatever argument you may find in my favor.

Nice dodge scum. I asked you where I said I needed extra reasons. I also asked you and notice you didn't reply where I said my reasons for finding you scummy had changed.

I explained what I think your reasoning was, so no more explanation was needed.

[lord_hur]

You're calling AV scum, yet everything he says seems to be true. Please find one way he lied and then prove it.

I just did. There were more examples earlier, in those shitwalls from him, too.

I'm just going to say that for now, you're lying, and you seem way too...worried in a way. Sorry, I know this means nearly nothing, but I'm really not in the mood to type up a case at the moment.

I'm not worried, I don't much care about this game anymore actually. I just stick around and dodge flying shit because it is my duty to do so. If the word you were looking for is frustrated, then I am very much.
And about the lying, well, you'll have to point me where it would be.

[lord_hur]

Ok, seriously expect around 10 posts from me tomorrow, it's my bedtime right now. So I have to go to sleep, but you seem way too emotional about just a GAME, so that makes me think you scum. A townie might not care that much.

I can't understand why scum would care more. Good night.

[lord_hur]

Sir Jilynne, the point you are trying to elucidate is not too far off the mark, though still a tinge misguided. As it were, the Rogues and Rapscallions would very much care about being lynched or not, as there are fewer of them than Gentlemen in our midst. As such, a loss of one of them is a much severer blow to their organization. However, impassioned Gentlemen must also care about not being a mislynch, as it is important to be counted as an Upstanding Citizen which makes it easier to root out those Lower Individuals.

This is accurate. Scum care more about staying alive, not about winning the game in general.

Actually, if you must know, this will be my very first time getting lynched as town, and seeing it happen on reasons so ridiculous without anyone roughing up my attackers makes me emotional and bitter. Getting lynched as town means I have failed, except that I do not feel I failed in this game.

[lord_hur]

I indeed live in Finland. I wonder what you mean by meta in this instance? There was a time once when I used my location as part of my defense, when I decided to go to sleep instead of doing yet another ISO read, but that was the only time I remember mentioning my location in a game. Not that this matters, just curious.

Sorry, I missed this. I metaed you about the frequency of your votes (and what you said is true, you do vote rarely both as town and scum). During it, I saw, at the end of one game, that you said you were wrongly attacked for inactivity while it was 6 AM in your country, Finland.

[lord_hur]

I appreciated the gentlemanly tone of this message, that was not charged with unnecessary aggressiveness. I will thus do the same. I admit you were always, in this matter, better than me, I fear. I will apologize posthumously to you about this if you are truly a gentleman (and at the same time lash at you in fury for using, in my opinion, despisable methods).

Whatever. I just said this to clarify my stance about you when I flip town.

What ho? So, they possess the attributes of reasons now, but won't have that formality at a later date?

No, sir. Simply, when I flip town, I wish other gentlemen to know that I suspected you strongly of building a bogus case on me, and did not express it solely motivated by desire to not get executed.

lord_hur, if you never get lynched as a true gentleman, why do you think that it is, that you are close to a lynch right now? Your entire carriage cannot be solely comprised of dastardly rapscallions.

Nearly one third of us are rapscallions, sir. This makes it very easy to get a gentleman executed. Also, we have a lady of little experience in the matter that I strongly suspect is town, two people that claim to believe me but will not try to build an alternate case (which is quite suspicious, in my opinion, especially for Sir inHimshallibe, who was quite vehement ; Sir Feysal, I see, greatly alleviate my fears by doing so before I talked about it), and one person who would likely say the sky is red. At any rate, there is no alternative presented to my execution. Explain me how I could hope to not be executed?

[lord_hur]

Holy... I was not accusing you, I was asking questions to make sense of one incredibly imprecise statement! You're voting people for asking questions now?

And you didn't answer my perfectly logical and sensible question, so I will reiterate : if it is not that my intent didn't match my words (which, by the way, was the most logical interpretation of your accusation, especially because of alternatives not making any sense to me, see below), what makes you say it is more likely to be made by scum? Because :

(ie. you were frustrated at being caught as scum, but you felt that the reason that you were caught as scum is completely ridiculous).

I am (utterly) frustrated, as town, for being voted for completely ridiculous reasons. You will have to explain me the very, very subtle difference...

I'm going to have to agree with Hoppster, even before I saw his comment, I thought what you thought was that you were really frustrated but for being caught for a horrible reason.

Indeed milady, I was frustrated for being voted for reasons that I found to be completely unreasonable, just like since I started being verbally attacked. Please explain the difference between "scum frustrated for being caught but for a horrible reason" and "town frustrated for being voted for a horrible reason". Objectively (that is, imagining me as possible rogue), I cannot see it.

[lord_hur]

I'd agree with the second part too! In fact, I'm very interested in seeing those. If you can find some convincing mistakes in AV's reasoning, I'd be glad to take off my vote. Right now, you're kind of leaning scum for me...but Feysal's got me pretty well convinced.

You are asking me to delve again in the fetid swamp of his extended assault against me? It is reasonable of you, but my stomach twists at the mere thought...

Well, rereading it, it seems to me that I answered to all of Sir AurorusVox's expressed concerns about me (except maybe his last lengthy attack against me, which I refused to answer to cease what was mostly repetition). I'd say his main point is for me to not question Sir Hoppster's word of not laying a trap, while I affirm I did not because there is not any possible underlying roguish interest in lying about it, since I myself (on two occasions in my last lodge only) often use traps as a gentlemanly strategy.

Nearly all the rest is derived, and explanation about, this accusation. So, I could not discern any of Sir AurorusVox's reasoning that still holds. If I missed anything, please point me to it, and I will explain.

Since you asked for mistakes in Sir AurorusVox's reasoning, there are also a few reasoning faults, that quite triggered my indignation :

Yes, I knew that it would make me look scummy, but I posted it anyway because it represented what I felt.

But why, sir, would it make you look rougish if it was, in fact, a correct proposition?

It can be viewed as OMGUS.

Good sir, that isn't the accusation that TT has levelled at you. He has found a different reason for recoiling from your post.

He asks me why I messaged it anyway if I found it suspcious. I then answered that it is because he thought that would be seen as "OMGUS", and then he attacks me again saying that it was not what Sir Toastytoast suspected me of, while it is clearly not what he asked of me.

Or this :

It could have been a trap, but I did not intend it as such. I am not suspecting Sir inHimshallibe enough.

Sir AurorusVox is obviously very smart. How could he not understand that this means I did not suspect inHimshallibe enough to try to trap him? Yet, he questions me about it, making two propositions that are not like what I said.


@AurorusVox: I am in the process of possibly reevaluating my stance towards you, sir. And... er... I indeed apologize for the tone of some of the answers I gave you, if you are a true gentleman. Anger and frustration had, I fear, too much of a grasp on me. I have a few questions for you, if you will answer them:
- Did you ever use traps as town?
- Do you have any way for me to ascertain your willingness to pursue doggedly your suspects, before or during your lenghty attack at me? Or maybe in a previous lodge?

[lord_hur]

1) I most certainly do. I believe my string of questions about why you felt you were suspicious was a sort of trap. However, my concern with you was not to do with the act of trapping or otherwise. It was with you being suspicious of Sir Hoppster, and yet immediately believing his word when he said it was not a trap.

2) I spent most of TxtMafia ranting about Chamber being scum but was wrong (one of my worst games) so I know it has its drawbacks; I honed in on ExeCultLeader (thought he was scum though, oops) and tried to get him lynched (town insisted on mislynching someone else) in CvM mafia which was the first baby steps of the doggedness; I thought I'd caught Fate out as scum with my ability (it wasn't anything too concrete, just some things were slightly off with when abilities were claimed to have been used) in Advance Wars, and though he claimed SpecialFateGambittz + bussed

both

his partners with fake cop reports + no one else wanting to lynch him, I still stuck at it until he killed me off (and yeah, he was scum). Gradual progression.

1. Actually, I was trying to determine if you really believe in this "concern", since I don't believe in it at all (and find it quite ridiculous, actually). Scum only lie to hide what they have an interest in hiding (at least, that's how I play as scum, and I have trouble picturing any scum doing otherwise), or they would be caught lying soon enough, so I was trying to see if you really thought traps are worth hiding.
Since you use them all the time as town, you see them as neutral, so the answer is no. Why then voting someone for believing an affirmation, when there is no reason for him to suspect anything in it in the first place?
I don't really make sense of your accusation, thus I can't put aside the thought that it was contrived. If you just were town caught in confirmation bias who jumped on a seductive at first argument, I think you'd have admitted the fault in your reasoning a long time ago.

2. One of the things that disturb me about you is that you go on and on against me, without any doubt whatsovever, never looking in another player's direction. Usually when I build a case, I come across a few things that are in favor of my suspect, or I doubt it at some point. You never espressed any of this, in any way. You said this was because of your bad lynching record, and that could explain it quite well, BUT... this only came after I brought up the subject. I was trying to see if you really thought about this before I talked about it, or if you just used it on the spot as a convenient excuse.

Well, I have trouble understanding your answer, I must admit, but maybe I wasn't precise enough in my wording?

[lord_hur]

Only 4 days, really? Damn...

Well, I'd lynch Reya Cookiebringer of course, if the alternative is me. But why him?

[lord_hur]

This sudden unanimity in willing to turn to Reya Cookiebringer makes me think that he's town, since I really can't imagine that there is no scum on my wagon.

Yes, I know I'm shooting myself in the foot, but that's what I'm thinking.

[lord_hur]

I am expecting you to vote for me : if it's me vs you, you should vote me, period, whatever your alignment is. So I have no motivation in manipulating you.

If you are manipulated by anyone, it's the one who dragged you in this fight. He has an interest in making you vote for me. And lied about having second thoughts about my culpability, it seems. Well done, Hoppster, well done...

[lord_hur]

You are contradicting not only your own advice to Reya but your own suspicion of myself.

That's the only logical conclusion of your 180° turn.

1) Dragging Reya into this fight, although not something I have done, would have been a pro-town thing to do, you nitwit. Reya has said practically nothing and needs to make stances.

No. You forced him to choose between me and himself. This is NOT taking a stance.

2) How do I have an interest in making Reya vote for you?

Stupid question. To get your hammer vote on me.

3) Yes, because it's impossible that I am either simply following AV's advice, impossible that I have changed my mind, or impossible that I have decided that Reya is town. Good show, lord_hur.

You didn't explain anything, which means your vote didn't mean any of this, but was purely tactical. You're not exactly laconic, usually.

This sudden unanimity in willing to turn to Reya Cookiebringer makes me think that he's town, since I really can't imagine that there is no scum on my wagon.

Yes, I know I'm shooting myself in the foot, but that's what I'm thinking.

This, coupled with your lack of a vote change to Reya, wrecked my tentative town-read on you. I simply cannot see any town motivation for this post, but I can see scum motivation. Scum, seeing the Reya wagon nicely forming and heading towards a lynch, distances from it and tries to gain town-cred for being so merciful to Reya (who flips town) despite being close to a lynch.

Ridiculous. I was at L-2, with two people ready to vote me (imaginality and Reya Cookiebringer), not counting those who unvoted me for tactical reasons. My unwillingness to vote Reya Cookiebringer meant my most probable death.

[lord_hur]

I will not claim unless someone affirms he will hammer me.

[lord_hur]

If you guys don't mind, sorry, but I'd like to unvote Lord_hur, since I hate lynching unless logic and my gut feeling tells me too...and somehow, I just don't think Lord_hur should be lynched. Earlier in the game he seemed very much scum to me, but now from the last 3 pages, it seems that the tables have been turned.

Reya has done absolutely nothing that's helpful, so why is he/she still around? I mean, even if she/he is a townie, I wouldn't really feel bad about it, but if Lord_hur was, I'd feel kinda bad/idiotic.

Must I remind you that if you're town, 1/3 of the others are scum?

[lord_hur]

Lord_hur needs to die.

Deadline is coming. Nearly half the players agree that he should die. The others are just to afraid to vote him.

You are a moron. I swear I will not play with you ever again. I will replace out any game you replace in.

Alright, since I will not vote Reya Cookiebringer because I don't think he's scum, there's no alternative, and we are at the deadline, I guess I might as well claim. I'm damned well tempted not to, but I must not betray the whole town because of how some of them are playing.

So, congratulations on being the first town to ever make me claim! You truly rock. And of course, you allow scum to hit the motherlode.

I am a

Gentlemen Skilled in the Application of the Scientific Investigative Method Additionally Enthralled by the Writings of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

. This is the exact role, to the letter.

I am a flavor cop. The power's description is rather long, but basically, I search rooms for items that might incriminate people (though my role specifically says that I shall draw my own conclusions about the items that I might find ; I guess this was because of the miller). Here's my breadcrumb :

Hello, I am most delighted to be in the presence of such refined gentlemen, although it is sad that my joy is marred by such a tragedy. Obituaries have never been my forte, but it certainly grieves me to see three esteemable persons no longer breathing. Lest we diligently find the culprits, more are certain to be added to this list.

My associate, Caboose, had urgent affairs to attend to, and I will effectively replace him from now on. Surely is it unnecessary to affirm that I will answer for all of his participation so far in this investigation.

First letter of each sentence, except the E that I could not fit in.

Here I was breadcrumbing about my investigation :

Unreadable = you can never know if they are scum or town (unless a power role investigates them).

I was talking about VI, so vezokpiraka. I investigated him, and I did not find anything incriminating.

Now that I've done my duty, vote away, or don't, or do what you want. Thankfully, I will be killed tonight anyway.

[lord_hur]

2. It gives info to scum. For example, if I were to claim cop, I would surely die next night, while if I were to claim vanilla townie, they would kill someone else, increasing the chance a power role dies.

Sir, I'm surprised that you did not claim that the above was part of your breadcrumbing.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that your comment about VIs being "unreadable" was a legitimate investigation-crumb, considering it only came about because Jilly didn't know what you meant by "unreadable" in a previous post. I think that if you had really wanted to crumb your investigation report, you would have taken the initiative yourself, not waited until someone happened to ask about VIs.

Ridiculous :
1. This was my crumb about investigating vezokpiraka (in case I get NKed), not my role, and I never said otherwise. My first crumb was enough to establish that I would not make this one of the spot.
2. She never said that she didn't know what "unreadable" meant. I did get out of my way for this one. And how was I to say I thought vezokpiraka was town, after I said I could not read VIs? Remember, I never lie as town.

[lord_hur]

That you kept this one in mind indicates that you were keeping an eye out for power role hints, though.

[lord_hur]

Additional Question:
lord_hur, your signature leads me to conclude that you despise lurkers and believe they should bring about their own demise, post-haste. Why is Reya receiving special treatment here?

Because everyone on my wagon, except the two I find most likely town (jilynne1991 and vezokpiraka, who is only flavor-innocent), plus my primary suspect, agreed in a heartbeat to switch to him.

Oh, and by the way, imaginality is scum.

[lord_hur]

But that's retroactive logic.

You think all lurkers should die.
Deadline approaches, a bunch of people decide that The Lurker should die.
Those people are now scummy.
You now think The Lurker should not die.

Can you see my problem?

No, I can't. I suspect persons. These persons all agree to vote for someone. This someone is then probable town. Where did you see "lurker" in there?

[lord_hur]

Are you suggesting that Reya is not a lurker?

Typical AurorusVox lack of logic. My decision has NOTHING to do with this. I hate lurkers, but they have the same probability as the others to be scum. End of the discussion.

[lord_hur]

For the record : AurorusVox is scum with imaginality, because of his asking why I would be giving special treatment to Reya Cookiebringer, while avoiding to speak about the other heavy lurker, who is none other than imaginality.

My bet is on inHimshallibe as 3rd scum.

[lord_hur]

Not really, other than you should have really started going after jilynne instead of inHim. Jilynne started to look really scummy that day precisely because she was tunneling you so hard. When you flipped town, she was obvscum because in hindsight her case on you was crap.

Well, it always was crap. It made me wish I didn't bite the dust, so I could back you up on that one, Toastytoast.

Good play from imaginality and Hoppster in the last two days, coupled with errors from both scum (mainly from jilynne1991, who dragged Feysal in the pit), made for a satisfying ending.

Thanks for modding, and playing.

[lord_hur]

Actually, your analysis isn't bad when you're not following your gut. In particular, your pairing analysis was quite on spot.