Mini 491: Porly Ritten Flayver. Game over.

[d3sisted]

Vote: Jack

Third vote already?
It might be because he joined 3 days ago. Then again, it might be a newb scum mistake.

Pssst...
Seol, I think you spelt "flavour" wrong.

[d3sisted]

d3sisted, your attention to detail needs working on

What?!

Oh, right. Sorry.

"Flavor", for you Americans.

=D

[d3sisted]

I actually didn't realize Adel voted you, I assumed I was the first.
I was ok with Adel and Javert's vote on MeMe, but you come in with a "that's good logic " BW vote? Too blunt for my liking.

[d3sisted]

LOL. I honestly didn't notice that.
I still stand by my vote on Jack, though.

[d3sisted]

Jesus, this is extraordinary; the flower-type thing in Adel's avatar spins BOTH WAYS!

[d3sisted]

Damnit ST, you ruined it for me.

Vote: Sir Tornado

[d3sisted]

I wouldn't even have minded if Jack said it was a random vote.
Just the way he said "that's good logic" before slapping one on, seemed opportunistic.

[d3sisted]

Ok Javert, you're making a big deal out of nothing.

I'm actually kind of suspicious that you would adamantly using such inane, insignificant details as evidence.

Not only is scrutiny of a player's online status unreliable, it throws previously consolidated evidence and arguments into disarray (luckily, we're still at the random vote stage). Like you said, it's not worth putting stock into such observations; you're better off just random voting.

It seems to me like you're just trying to grab a hold of something -anything- to use as reason to vote MeMe.

[d3sisted]

EBWOP: adamantly insist* using

[d3sisted]

The Fonz summed it up pretty nicely.

Unvote; Vote: Javert

3 a piece.

[d3sisted]

I already cast my suspicion on you earlier (44). Then, like I said, Fonz summed up my suspicions pretty nicely. You can't expect me to suspect someone without backing it up with a vote.

[d3sisted]

Bzzzt. *Audience groans*

Oh, I'm sorry your majesty, did I not answer your questions the way you would've liked? Is my atrocious voting behaviour vexing you? Am I impeding on your omniscient scum hunting powers? Speaking of which, why don't you actually put those to use? Oh I forgot, you're too preoccupied with the

online list

to care.

Are you claiming that it is better to random vote than to vote with something tangible to work from? Also, given that it is the "random voting stage" (which I don't believe it is any longer), how else do you expect discussion to start but for something people can argue about?

It is expected of the players to random vote in the beginning, that's how the game gets rolling. And yes, random voting in this case is better than pointless garbage, which otherwise just muddles up the thread.

Curious. Explain to me how unvoting MeMe and voting Adel fits in with the whole "grabbing hold of anything to use as a reason to vote MeMe"?

You tried to target MeMe, couldn't come up with a reason so you substituted that slop about her being online and unconfirmed.

2) My main intention was to counter your argument. Not until I thought it over (yes, I admit Fonz did slightly influence my decision) did I decide to cast an actual vote.

3) Stop getting so excited over nothing; you posted after my vote. Just because you tried to counter Fonz doesn't mean I'm expected to obediently swallow everything you say at face value. I read it, I consider it, I agree/disagree. Just because you

think

you've shown him incorrect, doesn't mean others feel likewise. As for Fonz's post, first 2 paragraphs. As for Seol's 6th, he's clearly referring to the interim between days (i.e. Twilight to Day Break).

(Mod: An end-all clarification on this, please.)

4) Opportunistic (like me), but not scummy.

Btw, Chaos is wrong; I did not call him for putting at L-4, which is just stupid. I called him for voting consecutively after Javert and Adel.

At any rate, you got agitated pretty quickly after you saw the third vote put on you; more so than was necessary. Scumtell?

[d3sisted]

Alright, Javert, you win.
Still, I think it's a null-tell as far as I'm concerned.

Unvote

[d3sisted]

d3sisted, please enlighten me as to why you worded your response in this manner. What was your purpose? Were you trying to bait me? Enrage me? Insult me? Discredit me as a player? Give yourself a laugh?

That was meant for you to decide.

Incorrect. Games "get rolling" when somebody presents an argument - the sooner somebody does so, the sooner sparks fly. Random voting was developed over time as a way to spur

eventual

discussion, but it is by no means the

only

way.

Sure it's not the only way. You can do you what you did. Except now, you look scummy.

Would you mind explaining how my post was "pointless garbage, which otherwise muddles up the thread", though? This is actually one of the more contentful game-starts I have seen in a good while, and I am surprised you are saying my post resulted in pointlessness and muddling.

You've filled the thread with 2 full pages of a pointless back-and-forth with Fonz, diverting us from any real scumhunting.

Please make it clear to me - do you think I am lying about what I noticed about the confirmations?

Not lying per se, but using insubstantial information to warrant a vote. I think the idiom is 'grasping at straws'. It doesn't matter to you who gets lynched off, as long as its a townie. However, you do require a bogus reason to justify your vote, which is what you gave.

Also, could you explain to me

why

I would be so "adamant" to vote for MeMe for "anything at all"? My post was not an attempt to convince others to vote with me - it was an attempt to explain why

my

vote on MeMe, and to show that it

was not

random.

Simple. You targeted MeMe as today's lynch in your pre-game scum talks. Maybe it's personal, maybe it's vengeance, maybe you're scared of her scum hunting skills. Whatever the reason, you did what you did.

Show me where I have become "excited" and "pretty agitated". I will obviously defend myself and you can expect I am not going to be jumping for joy after having been voted, but if you think I am overly excited to the point where you suggest it might be a "scumtell?" (instead of taking a stance yourself, I note you instead wait to see if other players think it is a scumtell) you need to be showing me an example of that.

Soon as I voted you, you threw suspicion on me pretty quickly. The "scumtell?" was a rhetorical question directed to you.

You are correct that you are more than free to disbelieve what I say - but I am interested that you say read my response and "agree/disagree". Which part did you agree with?

I meant agree

or

disagree.

I'd also appreciate if the lurkers weighed in on the situation; specifically ChaosOmega, sir tornado, and logictus, but kravhen and Patrick could put in a bigger effort..

[d3sisted]

My level of effort is fine thanks.

My apologies, overlooked a few of your posts.

Despite these accusations, you're not voting Javert.

Post 65, I capitulated to Javert. Mod has confirmed ingame that scum can talk pre-game, so there is a grain of truth to his claim.

Patrick, in reference to your previous post, I don’t know why you’re worried about the deadline. The thread started on the 15th, meaning we have

plenty

of time. To be honest, I’m uncomfortable with the way you seem to be pressuring us to get a lynch out asap.

[d3sisted]

hey its day! and nobody’s dead! hooray!

Did anyone else notice this? Is he implying we have either a Doc or a Roleblocker?

Whoa, shit, reality check:
Why am I at 4?

[d3sisted]

Yes, which is exactly what I'm talking about. If night-talking roles could talk during pre-game, doesn't it follow that they are also given a night-choice?

[d3sisted]

D=

Well, you are a quarter of the reason, MeMe.

[d3sisted]

I jumped on Javert because it was a weak and non-existent scumtell. Like I said before, I felt he was grasping at straws. That simple.

I refute your allegations of wagon hopping. Aside from posts ere 26 (random votes), I've voted

ONE

person, Javert. When mod confirmed the pre-game chats, I promptly unvoted him.

[d3sisted]

Definitely Jack, for his eccentric voting behaviour.

[d3sisted]

Jumping around a lot with your votes is all.

[d3sisted]

Why the fuck not?

[d3sisted]

I see it as scum's best interest to hop around onto different wagons to see which ones pick up speed. That way, not only are they hidden behind the other riders, they are also moving as quickly as possible towards the next mislynch.

[d3sisted]

No shit it's going to make them stick out, but that's trivial when their focus is on building up the bandwagon. Scum don't win by just sitting back and doing nothing.

Of course you're gonna say it's not a scum tell, you're the one doing it.

[d3sisted]

You believe MeMe might be scum because her confirmation was stalled. I don't. You're having quite a hard time accepting this.

[d3sisted]

Because it was part of the random stage, I would be inclined to think you had no intention of actually lynching MeMe. However, the way you've been ardently defending your claim does almost imply that you want to turn your "random" vote serious.

[d3sisted]

I never doubted that you saw her online. I'm just saying, it's a null tell. Unless you really do want to turn that vote on MeMe serious, stop trying to give substance to your claim.

[d3sisted]

I just explained 4 posts ago that it's my own opinion of your reasoning. I am fully aware that you don't agree, you've been defending it for four fucking pages now. We've already had this argument before, why must you

insist

on bringing us around in circles?

[d3sisted]

@Tornado: Ok, so you want me to keep responding to his arguments and continue this pointless back-and-forth?

@ChaosOmega: I dropped the subject long ago, and left it between Fonz and Javert to argue. Javert, apparently, thinks he still has some beef with me. I called him out on 44, ended it on 65. Now, when Javert (and a few others) continue to bring it up and question me for it, you say I'm the one leading it in circles?

And yes, if noone brought it into question, I have no doubt Javert would've used it as serious evidence in a later vote on MeMe. I'm not saying he's going to change directly from random to serious, that's just stupid. Hope that clarifies for Javert, Patrick, Tornado, and whoever else.

[d3sisted]

Is it safe to assume we have a doc?

[d3sisted]

Apparently d3sisted is going to claim a power role?

Wha?

[d3sisted]

So, obviously that nine sticks out. Jack, care to explain why its so easy to earn a vote for you?

Right now the person I am most suspicious of is Jack because I have never seen vote hopping like this, but I will hold off voting until his response

Previously in this game:

I see it as scum's best interest to hop around onto different wagons to see which ones pick up speed. That way, not only are they hidden behind the other riders, they are also moving as quickly as possible towards the next mislynch.

thats so wrong.

people who switch their votes all the time stick out and make themselves targets.

there has already been plenty of convo about people voting too much so scum switching all the time would just make them visible.

unvote,vote:logicticus

About to say the exact same thing. Looks like I was beaten to it.
So logicticus, I'm scummy for pointing it out, but you fly by saying it's WIFOM? Furthermore, did you see me post a vote on Jack when I called him for eccentric voting?
I think this is the biggest self-contradiction we've seen in this game yet. Seems to me like you're just trying to scrape together whatever garbage you can to justify your future vote on Jack.

Vote: logicticus

BTW, desisted, not detested

@Jack: Deadline is wednesday, plenty of time.

[d3sisted]

The not voting part is in reference to your "And its not like I voted for you, i just stated you were the most suspicious in my eyes." Just trying to say that you gave me the same scrutiny despite the fact that I didn't actually put a vote down.

[d3sisted]

He went from nothing to L-2 really quickly.

Really

quickly.

I think it's partially that some people are a bit stir-crazy, and I agree that what he said was suspicious, but I think at least one person at the end of the vote parade is opportunistic scum piling votes on. kravhen's vote at the end was most suspicious to me, mainly because it's the most OMGUS-y.

I'm going to keep my vote where it is, because I think logicticus has enough votes for right now, and d3sisted is still more suspicious to me than kravhen due to his arguing with Javert.

First 2 paragraphs QFT. The way that wagon built was almost scary...

[d3sisted]

So I'm guessing prostitute is one of the vanilla townies? I can't really tell because the goddamned flavour is so poorly written.

Haha, I kid of course. Took me a while to get that pun though


Anyway, I'm definitely looking at KScope's reluctance to vote logicticus as suspicious.

I'm also just sitting here shaking my head at ChaosOmega's 221.

[d3sisted]

221 is self-explanatory. See it for yourself.

[d3sisted]

Vote jumping, lack of reasoning, lurking, the works.

I'm not going to answer your second question until I hear CO's defense.

[d3sisted]

Very interesting, Javert.

Talk more, please, I'd like to know how else I'm scummy.

[d3sisted]

Are you more likely to vote Chaos today than Kscope?

ChaosOmega's accusation has metagaming evidence for support, so it does seem to be well anchored. Not only was Kscope unwilling to vote logicticus, he has repeatedly attempted to assail Jack, who in my eyes is town.

That said, I think it would be more likely I'd vote KScope over Chaos, but by no means does that mean I'm completely convinced of his guilt.

[d3sisted]

Any input on KScope?

[d3sisted]

I do agree with what you said earlier about Jack. Not only was he the one to spot logicticus' contradiction, he was the first to place a vote on him for it. Of course, this by no means definitively clears his name (it might've been an intricate busing ploy) but I am inclined to believe he is town.

I don't really like Kravhen's post there, where he makes a "delayed" OMGUS vote. Delayed or not, it's still an OMGUS vote to me.

[d3sisted]

Eh. You have managed to base your case firmly on the assumption that I am mafia aligned. But the fact that I instead have a town aligned role proves that your case is entirely null, baseless, and more or less fabricated.
Either you're trying to grasp at straws or whatnot, or you're looking too much into my actions. There's no point in scumhunting me, you're wasting your efforts.

[d3sisted]

1.) When the game started, logicticus had no problem with d3sisted's name – as evidenced by Post 9. However, in Post 163, he suddenly switches to using "d3tested".

I think this is a method of scum to 'distance' from each other – it subliminally sends a message along the lines of "I can't even get his name right – so I'm obviously not associated with him". It implicitly suggests unfamiliarity.

I have seen scum do this before with a partner – however I will caveat this by saying that the scum in question denied having done it purposefully (although that does not mean he did not do it sub-consciously). For those interested, it was my first game on scum, Newbie #166. I ask him after the game in Post 363 of Newbie #166... in particular, Dirge (scum) shifts from saying Akonas (who was his scum partner) to calling him "Anakin". I think the same principle may very well be occurring in this game.

D3sisted. It's an easy name to confuse. Null tell.

2.) When asked to talk about suspicions from logicticus, we get Post 163 and Post 174. Note the shift. He begins by suspecting "d3tested", but then goes out of his way to point out something he "likes" about him (in particular, a comment meant to undermine me). He then tries to cast suspicion on Jack for his arbitrarily made "vote list" – which seems to be there simply for the purpose of casting suspicion on Jack. In my book, this makes Jack more likely to not be associated with logicticus, and d3sisted more likely – it appears that logicticus is trying to find a way to not vote for d3sisted, or to take a strong stance on him. He instead says "some others are talking about the d3tested lynch", even though he does not give his opinion on it.

Yes, his blatant capriciousness regarding opportunistic votehopping and overeagerness is the reason he got lynched. If you'll notice, I was one of the first to vote him for it.

3.) Like it or not, MeMe was pretty much only going after d3sisted yesterday (though she did express incredublity with her discussion with Jack). MeMe may have been killed because she is – after all – MeMe; but it also may have been specifically because she was likely to latch right back on to d3sisted. I know people consider this WIFOM, "could be framing", blah blah blah, but I think there's a higher chance townspeople are killed because they are actually onto something rather than being killed while they are completely off-base.

Like you said, framing. It's pretty obvious (to me anyway) that scum saw the only other vote she made was on me, thus making her the ideal target on the off-chance that I would go down with her for the reason you provided.

4.) I think it's pretty clear that vote-hopping is not scummy. Jack is essentially responsible for the catching of logicticus – he got him tripped up on his words, which led to him being bandwagoned. It likely wouldn't have happened had Jack not voted for him – because a vote is something scum are more likely to start panicking about, and try to gloss over what they slipped up on (and note how logicticus tries to appease Jack – this is definitely making me think Jack is not mafia with logicticus). I find it next to incredible that people are still pointing at "vote-hopping" as being scummy directly after logicticus-scum was just caught trying to shift his position from saying vote-hopping is not scummy to saying that it is.

Yes, I've come to understand that votehopping may not necessarily constitute a scum tell. As you can see, logicticus himself placed zero votes this game, which is evidence enough. However, this by no means absolves anyone who hops.

Regardless of this, d3sisted has now claimed to find "vote-jumping" scummy, in his Post 235. What makes this post worse in particular is that he did not explain what he found wrong in ChaosOmega's post, but he still "wants to hear his defense". A defense to what? A head shaking? This post almost looks like d3sisted is trying to get himself out of answering Jack's questions.

I avoided Jack's questions because frankly it was silly that he had to ask me why I found CO scummy. As for the defense, I'm probing him on why he chose to cast a blank vote on SirT.

5.) Furthermore (still on Post 235), he is throwing out some vague terms that apply to other players besides ChaosOmega. "Lack of reasoning" (when he himself did not want to give reasons – it was "self-explanatory"), "lurking" (when it is pretty firmly established there have been multiple players lurking or not posting in the thread regularly), and "the works" (completely vague, and likely has little consistency).

Lurking is not the only reason I voted him. Like I said, I thought it was pretty obvious why was suspicious of him, and thats for not providing reasoning. Lastly, I didn't vote him on those premises. In fact, I didn't vote him at all.

1.) In Post 31, d3sisted uses "opportunistic" as a reason to cast a vote on Jack, and that he "minded" it. Later, when I ask him to comment on kravhen, his response is:
d3sisted, 63 wrote:
Opportunistic (like me), but not scummy.

Which rather implies that he does not think opportunism is scummy – especially since he characterizes himself as being opportunistic.

Opportunistic

BUT

not scummy. I.e. I find the opportunisticism scummy, though I feel he is probably not scum. And no, I recognize myself as being opportunistic because I understand that many find me scummy for it.

2.) d3sisted has been continually trying to insinuate that my purpose was to lynch MeMe:
d3sisted, Post 44 wrote:
It seems to me like you're just trying to grab a hold of something -anything- to use as reason to vote MeMe.

^ This statement was made while I was not voting MeMe.
d3sisted, Post 63 wrote:
You tried to target MeMe, couldn't come up with a reason so you substituted that slop about her being online and unconfirmed.

d3sisted, Post 85 wrote:
Simple. You targeted MeMe as today's lynch in your pre-game scum talks. Maybe it's personal, maybe it's vengeance, maybe you're scared of her scum hunting skills. Whatever the reason, you did what you did.

Then we finally get a flip:
d3sisted, Post 140 wrote:
Because it was part of the random stage, I would be inclined to think you had no intention of actually lynching MeMe.

And he only conceded that after I continually prodded him on that subject area.

Nice try. You pulled 140 out of context. Read the full post.
At this point, I believe all you're trying to do to me is what you tried to do to MeMe: Grab whatever dirt you can, relevant or not, and throw it at me in hopes something will stick and make me look "scummy".

3.) Even though d3sisted claims to have reasoned his vote on me in Post 44, he does not cast a vote on me until The Fonz comes to the thread and attacks me. NOTE: Nowhere in his post does he mention whether or not he thinks scum can night-talk with each other. Then The Fonz posts, saying that in his experience scum cannot talk together pre-game – d3sisted claims that The Fonz "summed up" his thoughts, and then voted. But after the mod confirms scum could talk pre-game, d3sisted meekly unvotes in Post 65.

The problem here is that the Mod did not contradict any reasons d3sisted claimed to be voting me for – his reasons were (and you may want to read it again) in Post 44 – which would be "true" from his perspective regardless of whether or not the scum could talk pre-game. This is basically showing that his vote really was taking advantage of The Fonz's arguments against me, without him actually relying on his own arguments, as he claimed to be.

Misinterpretation. Fonz stated, "When that tangible thing is complete crap, and does not have the properties you attempt to attribute to it, then yes, it is better to random vote." to which I agreed. Basically, I feel that your logic was "complete crap" and does not deserve the merit it isn't receiving.

4.)
d3sisted, Post 63 wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry your majesty, did I not answer your questions the way you would've liked? Is my atrocious voting behaviour vexing you? Am I impeding on your omniscient scum hunting powers? Speaking of which, why don't you actually put those to use? Oh I forgot, you're too preoccupied with the online list to care.


This strikes me as being scummier each time I read it. The entire purpose of this is appears to be an ad hominem attack on me. When I ask him what his purpose is [in my own Post 70], he says "That was meant for you to decide" (Post 85). In other words, it's a complete cop-out; d3sisted knows very well his own purpose in doing things, so it is not up to me to tell him what it was – I think he did not respond because there was no response he could have given that made an ounce of sense from his perspective. But if it is "up to me", then it's purpose is strictly ad hominem.

You can call it whatever you want to call it. Doesn't change the fact that I feel your reasoning abilities are complete crap.

He has side-stepped commenting/explaining on similar things, as well. In Post 114, he does not explain why he thinks "eccentric voting" is scummy (and in particular, how this differentiates from being "opportunistic", which is apparently not too scummy to d3sisted), and only after continual prodding he tosses out Post 117, which is not true in my experience. {It's rather ironic that logicticus comments about how that's "so wrong" while he never voted once on Day One, rather handily giving a good counter-example.} He also side-stepped Post 167, and more recently in the string of Post 233 and Post 235 (and when he does give 'reasons' they are completely generic and applicable to multiple people in the game).

Let's get this straight. Opportunistic =/= votehopping. Jack was guilty of votehopping, which I have finally come to realize is not as scummy as I made it out to be. And I'm glad you don't agree with my 117; you seem to have had a really hard time grasping the simple concept that different players have different opinions.
As for 233 and 235, I've already gone over them. Stop using repetitive reasoning to exaggerate your claims.

5.) d3sisted has also tried to paint me as being overly emotive/agitated:
Post 85 wrote:
Stop getting so excited over nothing; you posted after my vote.

Post 85 wrote:
At any rate, you got agitated pretty quickly after you saw the third vote put on you; more so than was necessary. Scumtell?

^ This is worse than simply saying "you seem agitated and I think that's scummy", because by leaving the "rhetorical question" hanging at the end, he is inviting somebody else to forge an attack on me without forcing him to do it himself/alone. In other words, he is trying to insinuate it is scummy instead of taking a stance on it himself.

When I did ask if he thought it was a scumtell, he replies "it was a rhetorical question directed to you [Javert]" (Post 85), which is completely unbelievable. I have a an extraordinarily hard time believing his question was as "innocent" as he is trying to portray it to be.

"Stop getting so excited over nothing; you posted after my vote." As I pointed out, you made your post after mine, yet you tried adamantly to make a scum-tell out of it. You were getting excited over nothing.
I directed the rhetorical question to you because understandably, reading others' emotions through the internet hardly constitutes a good scum-tell, as I figured some others would try to point out. Hence, rhetorical.

6.) There have been a few times in the game where d3sisted is claiming to have ignorance / propound theories which require being ignorant of the game status, which is especially hard to believe given all of the talk about whether or not pre-game was night, etc. Post 96, Post 98, and Post 166. The purpose of these posts are striking me more as an attempt to show more unfamiliarity with the night-game than he actually has, instead of actually asking the questions in earnest.

So you're saying ignorance is scummy?
...how ironic.


There you go Javert, the answers to your questions. You owe me half an hour of my life back.

[d3sisted]

Hi.

I can't see your role. I don't know if you are town or scum. With that mind,

convince

me you are town, because if

everybody

said that Mafia would be the most boring game on the planet. That post will convince nobody of anything except that you are trying to avoid responding to me.

You missed my point. I wasn't using "I'm town!" as a defense. Simply, your cases were so full of bullshit, I didn't want to sit myself through answering them.

[d3sisted]

How often, in your experience, do scum kill somebody for the attempt of 'framing', especially this early in the game?

None at all. Never seen it happen, don't know how often it occurs, not sure of how effective such a ploy is. The "framing" tactic is pretty much theoryscum, but it's out there.

*slaps head* The problem here is that you

also

did not provide reasoning until after Jack poked at you for it! And even

then

, you used reasons which were completely vague and applicable to multiple people.

"Lack of reasoning" applies to your

own original post

- and if you haven't noticed, MeMe is infamous for not explaining her votes until she chooses to do so. "Lurking" is true of more than one player in this game. And "the works" tells me

nothing

. In other words, I could probably use your

exact

same reasons to vote

somebody else

, which implies you are being selective in voting ChaosOmega whilst ignoring the same qualities when they are present in others.

The only reason I would want to provide reasoning is if I"m trying to convince others to vote CO. That's not the case, so why should I waste my time explaining myself? All I'm doing is prompting CO for an explanation on why he voted ST, so he doesn't get the idea that he can slide his vote through unnoticed, and proceed to drift back into lurkerdom. Lack of reasoning doesn't apply to my own post for the sole reason that I have not actually posted a vote. I post reasons when I want to defend my vote. If I haven't a posted a vote, what the fuck have I got to defend?

My point still stands.

This

post says that when you saw my post, you would be inclined to think I had no intention of lynching MeMe. By Page 2 (while I was going after

Adel

and

not

MeMe) you made it seem like I

was

trying to lynch MeMe (which is rather impossible when I'm voting for somebody else). You also suggested that I talked with my fictional scum-buddies at night to target MeMe pre-game (which implies you thought I

was

trying to lynch MeMe), which is again contradictory to your Post 140.

Alright, look here: Javert tries to pin the N0 scumchatting on MeMe; D3sisted thinks: "No big deal, it's still random stage". Javert continues to reinforce his original theory, attempting to give it substance and insinuating scumminess on a null-tell past the random stage; D3sisted thinks, "he is trying to lynch MeMe for real".

In addition, I am

insanely

curious with the blue high-lighted portion of your post.

When did I throw "whatever dirt I could" at MeMe?

I never attacked MeMe over anything other than the "confirmation" tell, and I only attacked her with that once – all my other posts were defensive to explain my position, or probing people about their thought process concerning the tell.

Fuck, do you not pay attention? Your whole confirmation tell, and the way you keep trying to bring it up as though it has any substance at all is a direct attack on MeMe. MeMe has died and come up town, what do you think of your shitty confirmation tell now?

There is no misinterpretation here. If you thought all of this

before The Fonz's post

, then you had no reason to wait until

after Fonz had posted

before you voted. In addition, you

unvoted

on the basis that Seol confirmed that scum could talk pre-game, but all the reasoning in your own Post 44 is technically applicable

regardless

of whether or not scum could talk pre-game.

Which means Seol's post should have done nothing to make you unvote.

Ok, so now you think that you know what I'm saying and thinking better than I do?
I voted you because I thought your confirmation tell is entirely baseless and completely illogical, not to mention stupid as all get out. So when Seol confirms that there is pregame scumchat, the confirmation tell is not all as baseless and illogical as it seems. It carried the slightest hint of a possibility, thus I am forced to unvote, because I have been proven wrong.

Ad hominem attack #2. Keep 'em coming.

Yeah, keep pushing for town lynches. Only proves my point.

Let's get some opinions on this. When somebody ends a post with "Scumtell?", for some reason I think that that person is asking other people to decide if they think it is a scumtell. It strikes me as an invitation for others to jump in and pick up on the attack. It

does not

strike me as a rhetorical question to the person you are attacking, however.

Then you're just being stubborn. Especially when you continue to push this against me after I've told you straight out it is rhetoric.

[d3sisted]

You are wrong on two counts here.

1) Javert cannot be pushing to vote MeMe out if he was voting for Adel.

2) He was not attempting to give it substance in order to lynch MeMe. He was giving it substance to defend against your attacks.

I realize that, but there was also nothing stopping him from using it in a future attack. And quite frankly, I had admitted that it had substance, after Seol's confirmation. Why he chose to continue bringing it up is anyone's guess.

Cite one post past first three pages where Javert has the intention of voting off MeMe. He agrees himself that his tell on MeMe is a weak tell. What his arguments later on D1 state is defending his scum tell -- people accuse his tell of being a nulltell while he maintains that it is a weak scumtell. I really don't see any "direct attacks on MeMe" from Javert apart from. The last post even mildly attacking MeMe is when Javert questions MeMe about the times she was on line during confirmation stage.

If ever anyone brings up any bit of a possible "scumtell", that is indication enough that they have intention of voting said player. Casting suspicion without any intention whatsoever to vote, to me anyway, would be suspicious.

Come again? What if CO was not trying to convince others to vote with him? Would he need to explain/defend himself in that scenario?

Yes, I recognize that possibility, so I look toward him for an explanation to his vote. Am I accusing him of being scum because he has not yet provided explanation? No. To me, mafiascum is about voting, explaining, discussing and swaying others to follow with proper reasoning. Frankly, if he's just going to plop down unexplained votes, then he becomes a detriment to town and he'd be better off lynched.
I really don't see why you'd want to advocate that style of playing either.

You

do

recall that logicticus

never voted

, right? Does he therefore have nothing to defend?

The stances you take and the reasoning you give are all open to attack and defense, regardless of whether or not you accommodate those stances or reasons with a vote.

ChaosOmega placed a vote on SirT without providing supportive reasons. I subsequently ask him to provide those reasons. So tell me what I'm supposed to defend, and how I'm supposed to do it.

1.)

Out of sheer curiosity, do you usually swear this much?

Why, is it bothering you?

2.)

As I had stated multiple times, I was defending the use of my tell, not trying to get MeMe lynched because of it. I

probed

at MeMe by asking her a few follow-up questions, but that is not equivalent to "throwing whatever dirt I could" at her.

So you say. I read your actions differently.

3.)

Tells are not going to work 100% of the time – there is no such thing as perfect tell. Calling my tell "shitty" because it was wrong in this single instance is an overstatement to say the least.

Fair enough. It was a bad tell, I'll leave it at that.

Your reasons in Post 44 are as follows:
->

a.

I am making a "big deal out of nothing"
->

b.

I am using "inane, insignificant details"
->

c.

I am better off random voting (because on-line status is unreliable)
->

d.

I am trying to "grab hold of anything" to use as a reason to vote MeMe

The Fonz attacks me in Post 48. His reasons are:
->

e.

Pre-game is not night (i.e. scum could not talk together)
->

f.

I should not use 'irrational arguments' in place of random votes
->

g.

I criticize Adel for my 'really bad argument'

You then claim in Post 56 that "The Fonz summed it up nicely", and in Post 61. In your Post 63 you throw out a couple more reasons:
->

h.

I tried to target MeMe, couldn't think of a reason, so I substituted slop about being on-line and unconfirmed
->

i.

I got 'agitated pretty quick' (though it is unclear whether

you

think this is scummy)

When Seol confirms that scum could talk pre-game in Post 64, you immediately unvote in Post 65. Out of the reasons you and The Fonz gave for voting, the only one which seems to have been tossed out from your point of view was

If that's how you're reading my posts, so be it. I've given you my side of the bit, take it or leave it. Everyone is open to interpretations.

e.

, meaning that your entire vote on me looks like it was precipitated from The Fonz's attack, and you dropped off as soon as The Fonz's main point was disproved, because you still seem to be very much of the opinion that my tell is "shitty" and a "nontell". Your play (in addition to the 'scumtell?' line inviting others to attack me) makes it look like you were not going to vote for me unless you had somebody else backing you up.

So even if I sided with Fonz's attack on you, why is that such a big deal? As soon as two people agree, they are immediately labeled scumbuddies? Also, you fail to notice I dropped off long before Fonz did.

It's basically asking someone else to make your case for you.

I already had my case made. Javert responded to my accusations with a ferocity that may indicate a position of apprehension by scum, yet is equally as likely to be coming from a townie. The two points negate to make it a null-tell, a fact I acknowledge by asking Javert himself, "scumtell?". This was originally meant for him to answer, a chance for him to explain the fierceness of his response, but I later dismissed it altogether because it was indeed too farfetched.

I think that depends on person to person basis. I sometimes end my points by adding "scumtell, anyone?" after pointing an obvious scumtell. That is my way of trying to bring the others into the discussion and get their views on the subject. I am not sure if that was what desisted was doing, however because the town's attention was fixed on your debate at that time, so I think that rhetorical question was unnecessary. However, I don't think asking rhetorical questions is necessarily a scumtell, especially if it is obvious what your views on the issue are.

I believe you missed my point. I have stated time and time again that the rhetoric was directed to Javert personally, and not to anyone else.

@Adel: perhaps you would like to add something to this discussion rather than "Posting to avoid prod"?

[d3sisted]

Am I accusing him of being scum because he has not yet provided explanation? No. To me, mafiascum is about voting, explaining, discussing and swaying others to follow with proper reasoning. Frankly, if he's just going to plop down unexplained votes, then he becomes a detriment to town and he'd be better off lynched.

So you're not accusing me of scum because I'm not providing information, but you want me lynched. So you want non-scum lynched?

Sigh.

If you had continued to refuse to provide supporting reasons, then you would be better off lynched because you are not helping town. You have, however, provided reasons so that is not the case.

Man, it's like everyone in here is hell bent on bending my words to hell.

[d3sisted]

D3sisted: Why are you getting so worked up at CO voting me without any reason?

You and Javert seem to think so. I'm not. CO voted without reason, I asked him why, he provided reasons, I was satisfied, case closed end of discussion. Javert, however, seems to think I'm scum for doing that.

[d3sisted]

What's the matter, Jack? You seem to be a lot quiter/calmer than yesterday.

[d3sisted]

[quote="KaleiÐoscøpe"]lolselfhammer

Unvote Vote: KaleiÐoscøpe

Ups, Jester?[/quote]Jesus. I just finished a Jester game last week, and this post almost made me crap my pants.

Kravhen's on/off voting of Fonz strikes me the wrong way. The only other person who has done something similar is KScope, who vote/unvoted Jack twice. Kravhen's second vote may have been in response to increased pressure on KScope, though that's hardly a tell when Kscope only gained 1 vote in the interim.

Not completely sold yet, so I'll

FoS: Kravhen

for now.

[d3sisted]

Now since fast voting is popular today, I'll go ahead and Vote: Javert

By doing this, you have indirectly stated that Javert and Patrick's fast votes were not indicative of alignment. Furthermore, since it's likely we only have 1 scum left, 1 or both of the fast voters must be town. Point is, it is equally as likely for town to fast vote as scum. Moot point.

Secondly, my vote on K-scope was genuine. You say I hopped on the end of a wagon. I didn't even know that nor do I care. First or hammer, no difference, someone's got to do each part.

Not true. The votes coming in at the end carry much less significance than those on the wagon since the beginning. Coupled with the fact that lynchee is scum, once his buddies see the lynch is inevitable, they would probably join regardless to make themselves look more town. So while votes at the beginning of a scumwagon look town, conversely, votes at the end have a tendency to look scummier than their counterparts.
Your vote on Logicticus came 5th, and your vote on KScope came last. Naturally, the scum would try to avoid voting a buddy if he still had a chance. Towards the end, you had no choice but to vote.
Then again, I'm not one to speak because I did not vote KScope at all. I admit, I was a bit busy with schoolwork and missed the BW frenzy near the end.

Lastly, you seem to think that because you were on both logicticus' and Kscope's wagons, your name gets automatically cleared. Conversely, you are implying that whoever was not on either of the wagons is more likely to be scum.
Two players fit the bill, ChaosOmega and Pooky/Adel (Adel's vote on logicticus came after the lynchee's surrender post). So why aren't you suspicious of those two at all?

@Javert, I disagree with your point 6. Let's not forget that The Fonz still had qualms with you (possibly residual from strong Day 1 suspicions) so he was a liability to you as well. Also, I'm not seeing how MeMe's death follows with Fonz's death; like you said, MeMe was a danger to me, and Fonz was a danger to kravhen. Wouldn't it follow that scum on Day 1 would've targetted someone who posed more of a threat to Kscope or Kravhen himself? What I'm trying to point out is, there's a bit of faulty parallelism in that argument.

[d3sisted]

Horrible.
You guys are tearing my posts apart.

Welcome to mafiascum?

I had the feeling I was the one going after him. But that works too, if you want.

Hardly. At most you were defending yourself from his assaults. Even then, the strongest defense you could come up with was:

I'm allergic to these PBP posts... I don't see it as a either a town or scum thing to do, so if you think doing "Show all posts by Kravhen" and commenting on each of my posts will get you townie points(or any point at all), you're wrong.

Which I disagree with of course.

Still, thanks for posting and putting in the effort, though.

I was going to talk about this as well, but it seems Javert has said it better than I myself could've.

[d3sisted]

I believe Javert still has some unanswered questions.

You haven't done much defending, pretty much just accepted the accusations as correct. Nonetheless, it looks like that's all the defense you'll be putting up, so...

Unvote; Vote: Kravhen

[d3sisted]

Congratulations guys, we won!

Wow, I think I understand what went on. Pooky was inactive, and that's why mafia never sent in NKs? Or was it because the Fonz successfully protected the scum targets two nights consecutive? Or maybe even roleblocker?

Props to Jack who successfully drove two consecutive scum-wagons. That was something phenomenal. I think that was what won us the game; I realized that on D2, scum would be extremely reluctant to bus off their last remaining partner (KScope), which meant I only had to choose from ChaosOmega, Pooky, and The_Fonz to kill.

My claim: Cop with vigging powers. I was responsible for MeMe, Fonz, And Pooky's death.

[d3sisted]

commentary: wow, what a blowout. scum didn't stand a chance. lynched day 1 and 2 with their night 1 and 2 kills (both aimed at power roles) blocked. i feel bad for asking pooky to replace in to that situation.

yep, scum didn't kill once this game (except last night, when they got shot too). both those kills were made by d3sisted, cop (actually a vig), who managed to kill the prostitute (actually a doctor) night 1 and the doctor (actually a cop) night 2. thank god for Jack's play as the vigilante (actually a roleblocker). all roles did know how they worked - cop was the rolename only, the ability was kill at night etc. if it wasn't for the killing of the final scum he'd be up for worst vig ever. :/

full role pms and night actions will follow tonight.

Simulposted with mod, lol.
That was some pretty crazy stunts we pulled off there...

Heh, once i saw my vig renamed into cop, I kinda realized the roles appearing in the deathscenes weren't accurate. Porly written flaver indeed, seol; I applaud you.

[d3sisted]

After Kravhen came up town, I though I was the next one to be lynched, followed by Patrick perhaps. Patrick really looked quite scummy to me, largely because I thought it was impossible for Jack, d3sisted and Javert to be scum. Thankfully, d3sisted got the scum correct on N3... (Although it totally beats me as to why d3sisted vigged Fonz, who was looking quite pro-town to me)

A bulletproof GF would have been good for the scum It think...

Like I said, after D2, I just targetted whoever wasn't on Kscope wagon. First Fonz, then Pooky. Meme was more of a random thing, I just didn't like how she only made one vote: on me (from the random stage) before jumping on to the end of logicticus' wagon.

[d3sisted]

Whoah! That was an unexpected twist. I had no idea my blocks were successful, hadn't considered a vigilante. Though the MeMe kill does make more sense.

D3sisted did confirm himself in my eyes by saying that bit about poorly written flavor. When logicticus came up as "goon" I realized the mafia didn't know.

Night 1: blocked K-scope. There was a kill so I thought his partner did it.
Night 2: blocked pooky. Very surprised when there was a kill. Adel had acted scummy most of the game and pooky was avoiding the k-scope wagon as d3sisted mentioned.
Night 3: Sir tornado

Wow, your lynches AND night choices were spot on. I'm quite amazed. To be honest, I seriously considered vigging you for being the first on both scumwagons as part of some massive bussing ploy to definitively clear your name all the way to endgame.

Nice catch on the "porly written flaver" bit. I put that in there to hint that the roles may not necessarily be what they are named. More breadcrumbing:

I'd also appreciate if the lurkers weighed in on the situation; specifically

C

haos

O

mega, sir tornado, and logictus, but kravhen and

P

atrick could put in a bigger effort..

This one should've been obvious, as Patrick clearly was not lurking.

I think I should've done a claim sometime on D3 to clear up the confusion, taking responsibility for the 2 NKs. I realized that if a roleblocker or doc was still alive, they might have gotten the wrong impressions from the disparity between their night choices and the night deaths. I even thought about claiming to get Javert off my case, but come on; how often do you fall into a vig-cop role?