Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[Jazzmyn]

/confirm

[Jazzmyn]

Vote: ribwich

Because it sounds like food, and I'm hungry.

[Jazzmyn]

FoS is basically getting up on a high horse and saying I formally accuse you of suspicious activity using bold text! when that should already be apparent from your reason for your FoSing in the first place. In other words, it's overrated, pretentious, and only good for being parodied (i.e. Middle Finger of Suspicion).

Vi is obvtown. OK, no. But she is awesome.

I have to admit, I LOL'd

Me, too.

[Jazzmyn]

First things first, I'm going to

Unvote

because my vote against ribwich was purely a random vote.

I am not quite sure what to make of the Scheherazade/Percy dust-up or the odd posts by Der Hammer, so I will have to re-read more closely in order to refine my thoughts on which player seems scummiest at this point, but so far, it appears to me that there are legitimate reasons for the suspicions leveled and votes against Scheherazade and Der Hammer.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I've re-read all of the posts more closely, and come to the conclusion that the best place for my vote at this time is on Scheherazade.

I admit that I am influenced in this decision by the arrogance, rudeness and condescension in his posts but those factors do make me more suspicious of a player who has already behaved suspiciously.

In my view, if his initial game set up/rolefishing post was an innocent error, it would have been a simple matter to just say so and move on, rather than spending an inordinate amount of time and space arguing semantics, insulting other players, and posting links to a dictionary and to a logical fallacy site.

In other words, it is not the initial sin that bothers me as much as the follow up.

Vote: Scheherazade

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I know what sort of person Percy is. Arguing with him is going to waste town time. It's going to be more effective to defend myself against reasonable players who hold their own positions than against him. With the votes-to-lynch so high, I feel that I can do that if I need to, when the time comes.

This ad hom on Percy really, really, really pisses me off.

@Caboose:
That's not ad hominem.

Oh, yes, it is.

You, Scheherazade, have made an argument against the character of a person rather than against the argument. An ad hominen argument generally takes the form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on Person A.
Person B claims that, therefore, Person A's argument is false/should be disregarded.

You have done precisely this when you claimed that "I know what kind of person Percy is" and then suggested that Percy's arguments should be disregarded on that basis.

Classic ad hom.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I apologize. I could have sworn that I posted yesterday because I wrote a fairly lengthy post and hit "submit" but, sure enough, when I review the thread, it is not there.

I will attempt to recreate it and post again shortly.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

First, my suspicions about Sche have not been alleviated and I see no reason to change my vote at this time.

Regarding Percy, it is possible that he was rabble rousing against Sche but I happen to agree with him about Sche
and I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy. I am not, however, enamoured
of his playing the newbie card in a couple of his posts.

Regarding DerHammer, I don't find him particularly suspicious. Some have found his saying, "good start with the
scum being killed" as scummy but it didn't strike me that way, and I understood his "sarcasm" post, but I do think
he over-reacted to strife's post asking for people's opinions on the top 3 vote getters, and I don't like his early vanilla claim.

Ribwich is pinging my scumdar a bit for his vote hopping, and his discussion of setup long after it ought to have ceased.

Finally, there is something still tickling the back of my brain regarding the odd interplay between Juls and al4x back when al4x
said he was deliberately acting scummy to get a reaction from her, but it is a mere tickle.

Regards,
Jazz

EBWOP: On "preview", I see that DerHammer has voted for Sche for a dubious reason, so that consideration must be added to
what I wrote above.

[Jazzmyn]

It was not intended for that to lead to more setup discussion. I had just not worded it properly and the question was misinterpretted.

Fair enough.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Yes, by my count too, it looks like 6 votes for each of Sche and DerHammer, with Vi, Sche, Tom, and Tax not presently voting.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Awesome, a choice between useless and more useless.

Sadly, I cannot disagree with that.

Where we

may

disagree is about which one is more useless, and it is entirely possible that I am allowing my disdain for Sche's rude, obnoxious, condescending play style to cloud my judgement in this regard. Yet, I still get more of a scum-vibe from Sche than I do from DerHammer, so I feel compelled to leave my vote where it is at present.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Regarding Percy, it is possible that he was rabble rousing against Sche but I happen to agree with him about Sche
and I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy. I am not, however, enamoured
of his playing the newbie card in a couple of his posts.

@Jazzmyn: You think that because someone presents a valid argument then it's safe to ignore suspicions about his motives and execution?

Kindly refrain from manufacturing strawmen out of my words, Sche. Doing so does not do anything to alleviate my suspicions about you.

For the record, though, I do not ignore suspicions about anyone, and I am suspicious of everyone at this point in the game. At any given point in a game, it is a matter of which players are

most

suspicious to me, and those are the players who my posts will perhaps concentrate on at any given time, but that does not mean that I ignore anyone or anything - I don't.

You don't have to be town in order to say something true.

Indeed. But I'm afraid I do not understand the purpose of this particular non sequitur.

Regarding DerHammer, I don't find him particularly suspicious. Some have found his saying, "good start with the
scum being killed" as scummy but it didn't strike me that way, and I understood his "sarcasm" post, but I do think
he over-reacted to strife's post asking for people's opinions on the top 3 vote getters, and I don't like his early vanilla claim.

@Jazzmyn: What about his reactions to being voted? What do you think of his most recent vote and reaction to Juls' line of questioning?

I previously mentioned that his recent vote was for a dubious reason - perhaps you missed that, even though it was in the same post of mine that you quoted from above. I think his reaction to Juls in his post #250 was pretty lame, and that was the impetus for my agreement with Vi in my post #270 that the choice at the moment, unfortunately, seems to be "between useless and more useless."

Ribwich is pinging my scumdar a bit for his vote hopping, and his discussion of setup long after it ought to have ceased.

Fair enough.

@Jazzmyn: Has your suspicion of ribwich changed? It's been a while since he moved his vote. Does that have any bearing on your assessment of "vote hopping?"

I have filed away his response to my voiced suspicion of him for future reference, and will reassess my suspicion of him as the game progresses but I am content for now with his explanation of the setup discussion point. As for vote hopping, you are quite right that he has not moved his vote for a while, and that may or may not have a bearing on my assessment later in the game, depending on how things develop. I cannot predict whether it will or not in advance of seeing how he plays and votes in the future, so again it is something filed away for future reference.


Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

@Jazzmyn: I posed it as a question because I was afraid that I had misunderstood you. It would have been a "strawman" if I tried to discredit your argument by arguing against one of my fabrication. Let me highlight the sentence:

it is possible that he was rabble rousing... but...I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy.

The implications of this post are that you could interpret this as scummy but choose not to because he says something you find valid. I'm asking, are you really discarding your suspicion here based on that?

No, Sche, you have constructed a strawman and you are indeed arguing against a fabrication of your own making, which is made even more obvious by virtue of the fact that you have to remove the bulk of my sentence to try to make it say what you would like it to say, rather than addressing what it

actually

says.

And "You don't have to be town in order to say something true" isn't a non sequitur--it's a reaction to the statement I addressed above.

It is indeed a non sequitur, both to my actual sentence and to the strawman that you created out of my sentence. But it is probably moot since, as I have already said, I agree that "you don't have to be town in order to say something true". That doesn't make it any less a non sequitur on your part, though.

I asked about Der Hammer again because you saw fit to note that he'd done something suspicious in time to revise the post where you state an opinion of him without actually revising your opinion.

And yet, you failed to address the fact that I had indeed noted DerHammer's dubious reason for voting against you back in my post #246 (the very post of mine from which you quoted), when I saw his post during the 'preview' stage of posting my post, and I said explicitly that it had to be added for consideration to what I had already written. And you didn't address that at all until after I pointed out to you that you had omitted it from your queries to me in your post #272. How very odd.

Are you saying that his action has absolutely no bearing on your read right now?

No. Please see my posts #270 and #273, in which I have already expressed how his recent actions have impacted on my view of him. They still don't make me inclined to change my vote from you at present, though.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I find Gerrundus hammer a little suspicious, did you really not know how many votes Der hammer had on him?

Nice of you to join us, TAX. Your timing is impeccable.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I, too, have to do a re-read and catch up on new posts, and will post something more substantive then - hopefully later tonight but if not, definitely tomorrow.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I, too, have to do a re-read and catch up on new posts, and will post something more substantive then - hopefully later tonight but if not, definitely tomorrow.

Update: unfortunately, real life interfered with my good intentions of getting caught up by last night but I will certainly catch up and post more over the weekend (and I hope everyone is enjoying theirs).


Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

This seems moot because Der Hammer has a majority of the votes.

Actually, he had already been hammered four and a half hours before you posted that.

Let me explain myself again, because it seems that we're unclear.

#270 doesn't address Der Hammer directly, only in terms of relative use. It doesn't reveal anything new about your thoughts on him. All it says is that he's less deserving of a lynch than me, which was already clear from your vote.

That's why I asked what exactly you thought and cited a post to which I thought you might have more of a reaction. Why? Because in your previous mention of his vote, you mentioned it only as a note and mentioned "that consideration must be added" to what you had just written.

I wanted to know what consideration.

I do not understand your confusion, Sche. In post #246, I said that I did not find DerHammer particularly suspicious, but that I thought he over-reacted to strife's post, that I didn't like his early vanilla claim, and that I had noticed he had voted for a dubious reason which also had to be added to the equation.

In post #273, I answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls, saying that I thought his reaction was pretty lame, and that it was the impetus for my agreement with Vi that the choice at the time was between "useless and more useless" but I still found you more suspicious than DerHammer.

In #273, you merely repeat the sentiment that you'll address it later. He was about to be lynched, but you were filing your thoughts away for later? Why? What thoughts? Were they vindicating? Damning? I wanted something concrete, not "I'm going to think about it later." That wasn't the time for that kind of thinking.

No, in #273, I specifically answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls' post, as noted above. The latter part of my post in which I said I had filed away

ribwich's

response for future reference was about ribwich, not DerHammer. It was in direct response to your question asking whether my suspicion of ribwich had changed. You can tell this because I quoted your question and responded directly to it.

So, again, I do not understand your confusion.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Gerrendus, Jazzmyn, DoomCow, Caboose. You were all voting Scheherazade for a significant period of D1; what's changed since then to keep you from voting him now?

Not a thing has changed regarding my suspicion of Sche, as should be clear from my post #327 directed to him above. He still seems to be deliberately obfuscating and misrepresenting others, just as he did yesterday. I was kind of waiting for him to respond to my latest post before voting again, but since he doesn't seem to be inclined to respond, I am going to go ahead and:

Vote: Scheherazade

It is probably obvious from my posts and my vote yesterday that I felt he was the best lynch choice then, and I still feel that way now.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Hello, all.

I'm just checking in to say that I am a bit swamped (in real life) but I will try to catch up tonight and post more soon.


Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

No, in #273, I specifically answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls' post, as noted above. The latter part of my post in which I said I had filed away

ribwich's

response for future reference was about ribwich, not DerHammer. It was in direct response to your question asking whether my suspicion of ribwich had changed. You can tell this because I quoted your question and responded directly to it.

So, again, I do not understand your confusion.

Regards,
Jazz

@Jazzmyn: You're right, I mistakenly applied the phrase "filing away" to the impression I was getting of your read of Der Hammer, not ribwich.

I was taking issue with the statement that you "have already expressed how his recent actions have impacted on [your] view of him." That view was that he was "useless" because of his reaction to Juls and "not suspicious" though his vote was "dubious"?

What I wanted was more of an explanation. If he wasn't suspicious to you, you were still willing to let him get lynched because he was "useless"? You suspected me, so why didn't you fight to get people to vote for the suspicious and useless person rather than just the useless person?

Besides that, you suspected me and all you did to convince others of my scumminess was to incorrectly identify one of my statements as ad hominem after another player already mentioned it and note that you didn't like my attitude?

If we're adding attitude into the mix, I'm going to go ahead and

Vote: Jazzmyn

for the following reasons:

1) Active lurking in the form of repeating popular views rather than generating insightful content.
2) Her suspect statement regarding Percy in her post 7.
3) Wilful dodging of questions, i.e. trying to ignore an explicit question by arguing that it's an argument, not a question.

On a related note, Jazzmyn, you dropped my concerns about your remark regarding Percy.

The sheer disingenuousness of this post makes me cringe. Seriously, I don't know how you could be more disingenuous if you tried.

Care to try again?

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

'Should look at Jazzmyn vs. Scheherazade next.

Sure. I really don't know why Sche is still going on about this as my alleged "scumminess" appears to be based on the fact that I did not find DerHammer particularly suspicious, for reasons which I set out on the first day, and because I found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer and kept my vote on him, even when the DerHammer bandwagon gained momentum and ultimately led to a mislynch.

I find it more than a little ironic that Sche accuses me of jumping on a bandwagon to get a townie lynched (nice not so subtle role claim, there, Sche), and simultaneously seems to be critical of me for NOT jumping on the DerHammer bandwagon (who we now KNOW to be a townie).

As was said on the last day, the choice really did come down to useless v. more useless, so I think that Sche's accusation about my vote for him is frivolous. Moreover, I do not believe his role claim.

As to his allegations that I have contributed nothing to the game, well, what can I say? I have tried to keep up as best I can and I have offered my opinions and answers to questions. Real life has interfered with my ability to post as often as I would like, but that happens to all of us sometimes, and real life has to take priority over the game, unfortunately. I am up to date now, with the exception that I have to re-read the posts about al4xz as I have not been able to analyze those as closely as I need to in order to comment on them.

Sche is not being honest when he claims that I made a "cryptic statement" and that I "refused to explain" it. My post was clear, and I did explain it when he indicated that he didn't understand it. I set out the things that I thought were noteworthy about DerHammer, and I added that a recent (at the time) vote by DerHammer had to be added to my consideration of him, as I only saw it upon preview of my then current post. I think it is clear what that means: it means that I would add it to my consideration of DerHammer. I don't know why Sche does not understand that simple statement, and I later answered his question and told him specifically that I had, indeed, considered that additional factor in weighing whether to move my vote or not, and I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer.

He is also incorrect when he claims that I have "parroted" others. Genuine agreement with the assessment of others does not = parroting.

He is also incorrect when he accuses of me of merely "scouring" the thread for other people's opinions. I actually read the posts very carefully (including all of his "wall of text" posts on Day 1 - ugh), and frankly, I think that this allegation on his part is a bit silly, since it is a bald allegation that can be neither proven nor disproven. For a guy who seems to pride himself on his "logical thinking" skills, this is particularly scummy.

He is being dishonest when he claims that I did not "update" my opinion of DerHammer. I commented upon the (then) intervening exchanges and concluded that I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer, and I said so.

He is also being dishonest when he claims that I did not answer his questions. I most certainly did.

His attempt to build a case against me on such a dishonest foundation and manufactured allegations is disingenuous to the extreme. I view this as scummy behaviour on his part.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Damnit, it's happening again. I get so bored of reading arguments that Scheh and his opponent make that I skim through it. =.= I'll have to do a thorough analysis of the arguments..

Both Jazz and Sche need to be more concise...

You both give me a headache. All the words end up blurring.

QFT. Way too late for me to read all of that. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

I, too, find it tedious and distracting, even while in the midst of these distractions with him. *sigh*

But I am not at all interested in a repeat of Day 1, so I'm just going to ignore him for now, unless he has something new, relevant, or specific to say.

My apologies for taking his bait.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

PP, not again...
This one's even worse.

Indeed.

[Jazzmyn]

Not scum-hunting - Perhaps. I would like to hear Jazzmyn talk about the other players a bit.
Voting on emotion - I hope you're not talking about that random vote on ribwich, because that's all that applies.
Allowing someone she didn't suspect to be lynched - 'Looks pretty false to me. Jazzmyn was voting for YOU D1, as were something like six other people. You could apply that argument to everyone not voting or voting for you.
Agreement without content - You could say something more along the lines of Jazzmyn only targeting people who are already being talked about. But I'll wait one more post before deciding here.
Avoiding questioning - Again, I'll wait one more post before deciding here.

I am not avoiding any questions. And I am not fence-sitting or deliberately only targetting those who have already been discussed, but since I can only post at night, it is often the case that those I find most suspicious have, indeed, already been discussed by the time I arrive. There is nothing I can do to ameliorate that, since I cannot post here from work during the day.

As for not scumhunting, I disagree with Sche's characterization, but I freely admit that I do not derive much pleasure in playing with people who are deliberately rude, condescending, and obnoxious, so I do tend to post less frequently in games in which that situation arises, such as this one. (I'm referring to Sche, not anyone else, for the record). I much prefer civility and a respectful approach, which I have found in almost all of the games I have played here. In those games, I am more active and much more engaged because they constitute a much more enjoyable use of my free time than dealing with a rude, condescending, obnoxious player.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Oops. My apologies, I messed up the quote tags in my last post. That was a quote of a post by Vi, but I neglected to delete the quote within a quote tags or something.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

My views on other players:

TAX has been completely flying under the radar throughout the game with only 7 posts in the first three weeks of the game, almost all of them quite innocuous, but then he showed up promptly after DerHammer's lynching to chide Gerrendus for placing the hammer vote. Then he disappeared for good, and was subsequently replaced by Percy in an interesting sort of "undead" event after Percy's untimely demise on Night 1. I was suspicious of TAX, but Percy-as-replacement-for-TAX has not yet posted enough for me to evaluate whether my suspicion of his predecessor should continue.

Al4x is obviously suspicious for reasons already pointed out and discussed at length: the recklessness of his actions leading to DerHammer's lynching, his poor explanation for his allegedly not noticing the vote count, defending Sche, blaming Percy (in his first incarnation) for "confusing him into thinking he was voting for Sche" when he was, in fact, voting for Sche in his post #36 until he switched his vote to DerH in his vote #37, etc. There is little I can add to the discussion about the suspicious behaviour of Al4x that has not already been said, but I do agree that it is suspicious.

I am not getting any particular scum vibe from Caboose, Vi, Zazie, iamausername, or TomMason at present, and not from DoomCow either, but more activity is definitely required from the latter, with only 10 posts since the game's inception 5 weeks ago.

Gerrendus has come under some fire for hammering DerHammer, as is to be expected after any hammer vote, but his explanations of his actions sound plausible to me.

Ribwich was previously pinging my scumdar, but his explanation to my questions and his recent play have assuaged my suspicion of him, for now.

Juls did not set off my scumdar while she was here. Juls' replacement, PutaPuta, appears to be quite useless and his posts and play style are decidedly anti-town, but without breaking the rules about ongoing games, I cannot say much more. Suffice it to say that I know exactly what Zazie is talking about in her prior post, to which I replied above.

I think that covers everyone.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Jazzmyn was notable because she said that she didn't find Der Hammer suspicious. If she didn't find him suspicious, I assume (and I must assume, because she didn't expand or explain much) that she did not think him likely to be scum. If there's one player who's likely to be scum and one who's unlikely to be scum, wouldn't a town player push to get the one that's likely to be scum lynched and point out why the one that's not likely to be scum isn't scummy?

Yet another misrepresentation of my posts, I see. Seriously, Sche, you should just stop it. My posts are there for all to read, so it does you no good to continue to try to distort them.

I never said that I did not find DerHammer at all suspicious. Nor did I say, as you pretended to quote in another of your posts that I found him "not suspicious". Rather, I said that I did not find him

particularly

suspicious, while simultaneously pointing out the things about him that I did see as potential concerns, and concluded that I didn't find him suspicous enough to vote for, and that I found you to be more suspicious than him.

And this just in from Bizarro World: You seem now to be arguing that I must be scum because I didn't push harder to get YOU lynched instead of DerHammer. I voted for you. I explained why I was voting for you. I kept my vote on you even when the bandwagon shifted to DerHammer because I found you to be more suspicious than DerHammer. I posted my disagreement about which of the two of you were more useless, and expressed again that I found you to be more suspicious than DerHammer. What more, exactly, was it that you think I should have done to get you lynched instead of DerHammer?

And one thing that you keep failing to recognize: if you were town and I were scum, why would I give a darn which one of you or DerHammer were lynched? Answer: I wouldn't. If I were scum, I would have voted for DerHammer somewhere around the middle of the pack and been quite happy with a town lynch, any town lynch.

Instead, I voted for you and kept my vote on you because I found you to be the most suspicious player, and I am voting for you now for the same reason.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

@ PutaPuta: Sigh, you are either going to get us killed or yourself killed. I prefer the latter.

Unvote: al4xz

He will not be forgotten. If someone replaces him, they will have to carry the weight next phase.

Right now, I think this has to happen, despite what I said earlier just thinking Puta Puta was playing like a fool.

Vote: Puta Puta

IAWTP.

Unvote, Vote: Puta Puta

Claim, contribute or die.

Without telling tales out of school (i.e., without discussing ongoing games), please be advised that PutaPuta has been known to post nothing but extremely anti-town posts and to then self-hammer as a townie for the sole purpose of being a jackass.

I realize that it might just be his way of trying to establish a mechanism for avoiding being lynched when he is scum in other games, of course, but for what it's worth, there it is.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

also just a note the fact that everyone quickly jumped off the alx4z wagon and unto mine when we were both unhelpful to town (lol) is suspicious, seems like scums trying to save their scum partner.

Uh huh, because all 6 of the people currently voting against you must be scum trying to save their scum partner.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

For the record, I am not a mason with PP.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I am posting this in all of my games.

Mod: I will have no access from tonight until December 7 or 8.

Players: Due to a sudden death in the family, I have to leave tonight for the west coast and will not return until Sunday, December 7 or Monday, December 8. If you feel that the length of my absence will be unduly detrimental to the game in light of the stage of the game, etc., please do not hesitate to seek my replacement, as you see fit. I do not want my absence to hold things up or kill the momentum of a game, so I will take no offence at all if you think it's best to replace me.

So, I will either see you back here next week or I will see you in another game in the very near future.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Hello, all.

I am back from the west coast, and I thank you all for your patience and understanding, your good wishes, and for not replacing me in my absence. I have a lot to catch up on after nearly a week away, but I will do so as quickly as possible. I think that I will scan the posts since I left for questions directed to me specifically and respond to those first, and then do a more detailed catch-up and more thorough analysis after that.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Jazz, you were flat wrong in the end about Sche.

Unfortunately, I was indeed wrong about his alignment (although I was not wrong about his play style being scummish, distracting, and unhelpful). Lesson learned, though, that players whose posts are scummish, distracting and unhelpful are not necessarily scum.

THIS needs explaining.

In the previous (but still ongoing) game that I was referring to, PutaPuta acted like pure scum but turned out to be a townie who, after a very short stint, self-hammered to screw the town over. My reference to him being 'scum in other games' meant in 'games other than the one in which I know he was a townie.' I was saying that although I knew him to be a grossly anti-town townie in that game, I could see the possibility that he played that way in that game in order to set himself up for a pass in other games in which he is scum (that is, in games other than the one in which he was a grossly anti-town townie who self-hammered) As an aside, the game that I'm referring to was his first game here, or so I thought at the time. I didn't know then that he was actually here with a different name as a reincarnation of a previously banned poster.

Another quote that jumps out at me--

If I were scum, I would have voted for DerHammer somewhere around the middle of the pack and been quite happy with a town lynch, any town lynch.

There's a glaringly obvious problem with this statement. If you need a hint, look at posts 179 and 183.

Heh. Good one. But, it ignores the most important point, which is that if I was scum, I would have been happy with any town lynch at all, and it ignores the glaringly obvious point that, if I was scum, I would most certainly not have pointed out where I would vote on any given bandwagon, especially if I had, in fact, voted for someone in roughly the same area of a given bandwagon. I was born at night, yes, but it wasn't

last

night.

If I've missed any other posts and/or questions directed specifically to me, I apologize, but the foregoing are the only ones that I saw on my first quick review. Night 2 was a brutal night with staggering losses and I will be re-reading the posts since my departure much more closely in the next couple of days in order to offer up my own analysis (and suspicions) in light of the current state of affairs.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

In addition, in post #491, DoomCow purported to explain why he didn't vote for PP by saying, "As for me not voting PutaPuta, by the time I read her posts she was already at L-1. I wasn't willing to hammer after the claim."

However, PP was put at L-1 in post #450 on November 26 (and he was lynched on November 29). DoomCow's most recent post prior to PP being put at L-1 was on November 18 and DC didn't post at all between November 18 and December 1. So, either DC is lying about having seen when PP was at L-1 and lying about his reasons for not voting PP, or DC is admitting not only to actively lurking, but doing so to the extent that he made absolutely no comment on a player being at L-1 - not even to say that he wasn't comfortable hammering in light of the claim.

And yet, now he comes along and puts a player at L-1 without reading the thread, and justifies it by relying upon two other posts by two other players? This is way off base.

And how on earth does one justify having only 14 posts in the two full months that this game has been going on?

Vote: DoomCow

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Sigh... Someone just vote him off then we do not have to spend a year waiting for a replacement.

It is tempting, I must admit. But I at least want to wait to see what Huntress has to say when she's caught up. More input from DoomCow would be nice too, but I'm not exactly holding my breath on that one.

I agree with these sentiments. I want to hear Huntress' take on things first, of course, but if the choice comes to waiting a lengthy period of time in order to replace a player at L-1 and hammering, I will switch my vote and hammer.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Welcome, Jahudo and Tarhalindur.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Jahudo,

Re: your post #583. I think you'll find when you complete your read of the rest of the thread that the matters you raised about my posts have already been addressed. However, if you have any questions of me once you've caught up, I will be happy to answer them.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Mod: could you prod Zazie?

She hasn't posted in over a week; her last post was on the 15th, saying she would accept her 'second chance' and post her thoughts the next day.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Doomcow used the cop on Tom Mason N1 (Innocent) and vigged Scheherazade N2.

I find this very difficult to believe.

While DoomCow barely participated in the game, he did express suspicions of Sche on Day 1, voted for Sche on Day 1, and continued to express suspicion of Sche on Day 2. He never once voiced any suspicion of Tom Mason at all on Day 1 (nor did anyone else). In the circumstances, I find it difficult to comprehend why DoomCow would investigate Tom Mason on Night 1. This looks more to me like a ballsy attempt by scum at L-1 to get out of his dilemma in hopes of living to see another day, while simultaneously either (a) "clearing" TomMason-scum or (b) implicating TomMason-town as scum by purporting to clear him.

Either way, though, the claim just doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps once others chime in with their thoughts, I'll change my mind, but at the moment, my vote is staying where it is.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Craplogic. As previously noted by iamausername, Cop should not investigate scummy players unless he's out of unreadables.

That's easy to say, of course, but it is not even remotely universal among players for a Cop to investigate only those whom they have no good read on rather than those whom they have legitimate suspicion about.

In the particular circumstances of this game

, and in light of DoomCow's stated suspicion of Sche on Day 1 and the reality that Sche was going to still be under a cloud of suspicion on Day 2, I find it very difficult to believe that DoomCow would investigate TomMason instead of Sche on Night 1.

I base my thoughts in this game on the circumstances of this particular game, not on a generic strategy that some think a Cop should or should not employ in other games.

This second paragraph looks scummy as all hell. Note the pushing a wagon in a style I associate with scum while keeping an escape route open ("Perhaps once others chime in with their thoughts, I'll change my mind").

Excuse me while I look over your posts again.

Please do look over my posts again. They're all there for anyone to read.

I'm not 'pushing a wagon' at all, nor am I looking for an "escape route". Rather, I am leaving my vote where I cast it back on December 13 because your predecessor was and remains the most suspicious player to me at present. That said, this is my first game of this sort (I've only played in Newbie games prior to starting this game) and I fully recognize that there is much to learn, thus my willingness to do so, and thus my willingness to keep an open mind to the arguments of others, and possibly change my vote accordingly. If you find open-mindedness, a willingness to learn, and a willingness to listen to the arguments of others "scummy," well, there is little I can do about that.

By listing which shots I had used I was implicitly claiming that Doomcow used no actions N0. Poor phrasing, I admit, but not the slip you think it is.

Perhaps. But you were making an explicit role-claim at L-1, and you chose to be explicit about N1 and N2, so it shouldn't come as a great surprise to you that the lack of an explicit claim about N0 looks a bit off.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I started to go through and respond to your entire post, Tarhlindur, but then decided that I am not going to go back through the Walls of Words between Sche and myself again, sorry.

They speak for themselves; they are there for all to read,

in context

, should anyone care to revisit them. But they were painful enough the first time around and I, for one, am not interested in rehashing them.

You seem to be trying to give all of my posts a spin that paints me as scum, but that is not a particularly useful way to attempt to construct a case on someone. Confirmation bias leads to mislynches. Try reading my posts with a townie filter on instead of your "full frontal assault=best form of defence" filter on, and you'll see what I mean.

My posts are what they are. If you believe that they indicate that I am scum, so be it. You will be quite wrong, and if I am lynched, the town will be down another townie today and who knows how many more overnight, but I am simply not willing to go through all of those Walls of Words again.

I will, however, address other points you've raised.

Jazzmyn: Is referring back to previous reasoning part of your playstyle? Please give reference to a previous game if possible.

I refer back to previous reasoning if that is what is required, rather than repeating the same things over and over, particularly when the previous reasoning is very recent and easy to locate. In the particular instance of this game and my exchanges with Sche, I also did so to avoid even larger Walls of Words than had already evolved. I think I generally included post numbers to make the references readily available (although perhaps I should figure out how to link to prior posts instead of just citing the post numbers).

As for references to previous games, you can certainly find other instances in which I refer to prior reasoning when that is what is called for. I don't know how to post links and most of my other games are still ongoing, but you can click on the profile button and find them at your leisure.

Explain to me exactly why being useless is scummy. Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong here - I'm checking to see if your logic is sound.

As I see it, being useless is scummy (although being useless does not necessarily mean that a player is scum-aligned) because useless players hinder the town's ability to achieve its goals in various ways, among them (although this is not an exhaustive list): distracting focus from scum-hunting, annoying others unnecessarily, engaging in semantic arguments and other unhelpful discussions, being rude and obnoxious enough to make other town players not want to participate as much as they otherwise would, stroking their own egos with stupid references to their own alleged superiority, or simply not participating in any meaningful fashion at all (again, this is not an exhaustive list). All of which permits scum to sit back and watch townies go at each other, enjoy the show, jump on town wagons without attracting attention, and otherwise avoid detection. Further, scum then have good reason to leave useless players alive in order to utilize them to their advantage unless the town kills them off on their own, which can lead to horribly mismatched end-games and scum wins.

Note that Jazzmyn was perfectly willing to ignore my predecessor's lurking and general scumminess yesterday, despite her zeal today.

Actually, what I said previously (back on November 21) was that I was not getting any particular scum-vibe from DoomCow, due to his lack of posts, and I noted on December 13 the reasons for subsequently finding him scummy and voting for him: in addition to what Vi, Caboose, and Tom Mason said in posts 543, 545, and 546, I pointed out that DoomCow was either lying in his post #491 about having seen when PutaPuta was at L-1 and lying about his reasons for not voting for PutaPuta, or he was admitting to actively lurking in a most egregious fashion. That, combined with him popping in to to put a player at L-1 without even reading the thread and attempting to justify it by saying he was relying upon two posts by two other players, is among the scummiest things I've ever seen, thus my vote.

How does voting for DoomCow/you for good reasons, which you have yourself acknowledged as being legitimate, somehow equate to "zeal" on my part all of a sudden?

Jazzmyn conclusions on Gerrendus reek of IIoA.

What does IIoA mean?

Her conclusions on Puta Puta are scummy as hell, and not just for the reasons previously discussed by other players.

No, they aren't. PutaPuta had subbed into another game I was playing shortly before he subbed in here, and in that game, he played in a grossly scummy manner and turned out to be a townie who self-hammered just for kicks to screw over the town. That game was (and still is) ongoing so I couldn't say too much about it, but I was gun-shy about him doing the same thing in this game.

Which of course poses the question "Why don't you just lynch him for making the anti-town posts, meta be damned?".

I already explained this previously in the game and just above. I was gun-shy about PutaPuta doing the same thing in this game that he did in the other game a couple of days earlier when he was town and drew a wagon upon himself just so that he could self-hammer to screw over the town. Plus, I was quite convinced (erroneously as it turns out) that Sche was scum, so that’s where I left my vote.

Or, better yet, "Why don't you make sure that every vig or SK shoots the hell out of him ASAP?"

I had no way of knowing whether we had vigs or SKs in the game, so how do you propose that I ought to have done that?

There is a correct response to anti-town behavior. That response is to kill the offending player.

Thanks for the tip. It’s all so easy, with 20-20 hindsight, to lecture others about their errors, isn't it?

Admittedly a decent argument against me.

Gee, thanks.

Why the level of surprise for DoomCow only having 14 posts today when you seemed only moderately interested that DoomCow only having 10 posts when you commented on him on Day 2?

More than three weeks had passed in the interim, and it was surprising to realize that he had posted so little since then; it was especially surprising to see the level of scumminess in his latter posts, since he had very effectively lurked and probably lied, as set out above.

I can't be certain about DoomCow's reasons for his actions,

Sure you can if you’re scum, as DoomCow appears to be.

but there's a gaping problem here. If you only have 1 investigation and a player you think is going to be scum is going to be under heavy suspicion and probably lynched the next day, why waste your shot on that player instead of confirming a relative unknown.

I wondered whether or not you would actually read the thread to see where DoomCow's focus was. Interestingly enough, DoomCow expressed suspicion on Day 1 on TAX, whom nobody else seemed to find suspicious, and who was a relative unknown...I guess that's another "gaping problem", hmm?

And yet that "perhaps once others chime in with your thoughts" could also be used to justify leaving the wagon later.

Sure, if you choose to try to spin everything I’ve written through a scum filter to feed a propensity to the confirmation bias fallacy, you could view it that way. But you would again be wrong. As I said, I am willing to listen to others, willing to learn, and I am open minded to the arguments and evidence of others. If evidence and compelling arguments are provided, I will certainly take that on board and change my vote accordingly, but I will not retract my vote just because someone who I am suspicious of goes on a misguided tirade against me. I still view DoomCow as scum, which means that, by extension, I see you as scum.

I will admit, however, that this is unlikely given your later actions, and hypocritical given what was scummy about your attack (speculation about motives that the player you are attacking cannot possibly defend against).

I recognize that it is difficult to account for the actions of a predecessor, as I have replaced into every game I’ve played so far except for this one, but that doesn’t absolve you of your predecessor’s actions and it does not make me “hypocritical” at all. Now, you're just being silly.

DIE, SCUM, DIE.

Oh, the drama.

But you are quite wrong. I am not scum. I hope that other players see through your overzealous and entirely manufactured attack on me. If they do not, I sincerely hope that they string you up tomorrow when I flip vanilla town. In either event, this game has really been an interesting learning experience for me, so thanks to all for that.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

@615: Wow, I feel inadequate. I and others saw some of those things already today, but the vs. Scheherazade analysis shows me how bad I am about giving people the benefit of the doubt.

You're not inadequate; you're being played by Tarhalindur.

That's an impressive case against Jazzmyn but I'm a bit wary that it's an all-out assault made on the basis that attack is the best form of defence.

Nailed it in one.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Just because you choose to ignore the case against you doesn't mean that you won't be lynched for it.

I'm not ignoring anything. To the contrary, I invite everyone to read the posts

in context

and come to their own conclusions, but I am not willing to rehash the Walls of Words between Sche and myself. I think you suspect that most other players won't go back and read them in context, and that's why you thought that you could use them as a purported "case" against me. If players want to lynch me on that basis, I'm okay with that. I've never been lynched before (except in an endgame by scum) so this is a learning experience for me, in any event.

Quite the opposite, if I have anything to say about it.

Well, fortunately for the town, the game is about identifying and eliminating scum, not "Whoever Yells the Loudest and Most Forcefully While Being Dead Wrong Wins".

1) You are refusing to offer elaboration on your earlier posts AGAIN, even after that was a major part of my own case against you. (Remember: Town CANNOT allow players to simply ignore points against them just because they don't want to deal with that anymore. Why?

Because that is scummy behavior.

)

Your "case" is utter nonsense, as you well know. I am not going to be goaded into revisiting the Walls of Words by your shouting and screeching.

2) Clearly, more than one player has found that your posts either do NOT speak for themselves without additional explanation or speak for themselves and say that you are scum. I would think that the town response to this would be to go back and explain (read: defend) your reasoning further.

No, Sche was being deliberately obtuse for his own reasons (probably largely to do with his massive ego, which you would see if you actually read the thread instead of trying to paint me as scummy for your own purposes), and you are pretending to find my posts to him unclear because you've decided that a full frontal assault on me is the easiest and best defence for your predecessor's blatant scumminess.

I can't decide whether to use the ... <snipped>

Okay, that was actually humorous. But you should probably avoid tossing around logical fallacies that you don't seem to comprehend, or at least you should try to avoid misapplying them so blatantly. Still, I laughed. I have told you quite clearly why I am not going to rehash the Walls of Words between Sche and myself, and I have addressed everything else that you raised. If you don't like it, too bad.

1) Wait, didn't you, if not attack, then at least ridicule Scheherazade for what you claimed was a stealth claim earlier?

Mine isn't a stealth claim at all. Mine is an outright claim in response to being at L-2, during Christmas/New Year holidays with a deadline looming and limited posting opportunities for many. Sche's was unsolicited, unnecessary, not during holidays or under a deadline, and he wasn't at L-2.

Whatever made you think that I hadn't already used "Search -> Search by author: Jazzmyn -> Category: Mafia Games -> Show results by: Topics"? I just wanted to see which games, if any, you would use to justify.

Even though you may not have intended that as an IC Tip, thanks. I didn't realize that one could search that way. I have only used the "profile" and "find all posts" method, but the method you set out above is much better.

IC Tip: to add a link <snipped>

Thanks. I'll try that

This is mostly sound logic, so good marks here

More damning with faint praise, or legit this time?

Because I got the impression from your post where you made your case against DoomCow that there were TWO main reasons for your attack on DoomCow: 1) The vote for Puta Puta (this includes both timing and reasoning), and 2) my predecessor's lack of posting and and IIoA, which you did NOT appear to find particularly scummy when you commented on DoomCow on Day 2. The former is legitimate. The latter, if I was interpreting the case correctly (which it is entirely possible I was not), would be a direct contradiction, which is scummy as all hell.

Wrong on both counts. On the former, DoomCow didn't vote for PutaPuta. Rather, it appears that he LIED about his reasons for not voting for PutaPuta. On the latter, I commented on DoomCow's lack of posts in November, saying that I wasn't getting any particular scum vibe on him

as a result of

his lack of posts. On December 13, when I voted for him/you, it was due to his apparent lying, his active lurking, and his putting another player at L-1 without even reading the thread, and purportedly on the basis of two posts by two other players. As I said previously, that was the scummiest behaviour I have ever seen. I don't think he was engaging in IIoA (as defined by you in the link you provided) - rather, he lied, lurked and tried to lynch someone without even reading the thread.

Information Instead of Analysis, a Tarhalindur Standard Tell.

From your link:

The general form of this tell is "players who speculate about the setup more than they ask for other players' reasoning and/or accuse other players of being scum are probably group scum".

You accused me of engaging in IIoA but I don't see how this definition of yours applies to me at all. Heck, I don't even see how it applies to your predecessor, even though he exhibited the most scummy behaviour I've seen to date.

1) Uh, yes you did (sorry Vi, take a look again), for three reasons. 1) There were three kills N1. One of the players killed was Xtoxm, who is a fairly obvious candidate for a policy vig (he tends to get lynched early in games where he is not vigged) or an SK trying to act like a Vig, and who came up Mafia (so it's doubtful that the Mafia killed him). 2) Moreover, there is evidence against having multiple scumgroups in the game (Xtoxm was identified as Mafia rather than So-and-So Mafia, so the only standard was to have a second Mafia is through Werewolves). 3) There were two kills N1, indicating that there are almost certainly at least two unrestricted killing roles in the game. The logical conclusion here could have been derived on Day 2: There is almost certainly a Vig (playing by Pie's recommendations) or an SK trying to look like Vig (who has at least some motive to kill Puta Puta).

As I've already pointed out, this is my first non-Newbie game, and I still don't understand all of the roles or the interplay between them. I also don't know anything about Xtoxm or why he would be a 'fairly obvious candidate for a policy vig' or 'an SK trying to act like a vig', etc. so I don't know why you would expect me to have gleaned all of this information on Day 2.

Now, how to push to get that player vigged? It's quite simple: comment about how you would really like for Puta Puta to get vigged or investigated ASAP instead of wasting a lynch on him (or in case the wagon against him stalled, had that been your mindset).

I don't understand why you claim that I'm scummy for failing to call for an SK or a vig to kill PutaPuta, when (a) I didn't even know that there are/were vigs or SKs in play, and (b) nobody else in the game, presumably most with more experience than me, made any such call either. It seems like you're claiming that I'm scummy for not calling upon a vig or SK kill of PutaPuta but, to be consistent, doesn't that mean that you also have to view every other player in the game as scummy for not making a call for a vig or SK to kill PutaPuta?

Reasonable.

More damning with faint praise, or legit this time?

Bullshit. How exactly am I supposed to know what DoomCow was thinking when he made his posts without being DoomCow?

Way to deliberately misinterpret and twist what I said. Obviously, I was saying that if you are scum, as I believe DoomCow/you to be, then you do, in fact, know why he did what he did - i.e., because he/you are scum.

1) Funny, I've seen no evidence of "willingness to learn" with your play earlier this game... but I digress.

Keep watching.

2) Why does this new "confirmation bias" defense seem so similar to the "misrepresentation" defense you used against Scheherazade? (Maybe it's that the hypocrisy factor is the same.)

The reality is that you are plumbing the depths of the confirmation bias fallacy to try to manufacture a completely bogus case against me, apparently in hopes that others won't catch on to what you are doing. I give them more credit than you do; I think they will see that you're playing them. I've done nothing hypocritical at all, and your assertion to the contrary is just another one of your lame attempts to paint me as scum in order to further your own agenda.

I was referring to MY OWN speculation about your motives being hypocritical in light of my defense for DoomCow's actions.

You're right. I did misinterpret that. I thought you were accusing me of being hypocritical rather than yourself. Sorry about that.

No, not drama, just my normal response to blatantly obvious scum. You should try it sometime, it's amazingly stress-relieving.

I am not scum, and I am not under any stress, so I have no need to resort to silly, dramatic nonsense.

1) Um, surely I noted above how you reacted to Scheherazade when you thought he had claimed in the same manner you just did?

I have already addressed this above. The two situations are not even remotely similar.

2) Your refusal to engage in "walls of words", as you call them, has - dare I say conveniently - resulted in you ignoring the strongest elements of the case against you, which are, in my experience, more than enough to conclude that you are scum.

If the "strongest elements" of your "case" are the Walls of Words, then your case is utter crap, it's as simple as that. And no, as I said before, you are not going to goad me into rehashing them again.

Regards,
Jazz

P.S.

Vote: Jahudo.

I know with 100% certainty that I am town and while I still think that Doom/Tar is scum, he isn't alone. It will do the town absolutely no good for me to be lynched, so I'm okay with a Jahudo lynch, particularly in light of his mindless following of Tar against me. I hope he wasn't just naive as opposed to scummy, but there it is.

[Jazzmyn]

Make that:

Unvote;
Vote: Jahudo

[Jazzmyn]

Ugh.

It appears that I am probably one of those "useless players" that we discussed earlier, so - see, I'm learning - a vig or a SK should probably kill me tonight.

Apologies.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Hi, all

The timing of the site going down was unfortunate as I had lots of time to read and play early in the week but next to none in the latter part of the week. But I have lots of time this weekend so I will re-read, catch up, and post more soon.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I am very peeved at myself for voting Jahudo on the last Day. I had become somewhat frustrated with Tarhalindur's overly aggressive (and misplaced) accusations against me, and at the same time, I started to doubt my own analysis when several others were expressing suspicions of Jahudo rather than Tarhalindur. Then, when Jahudo seemed to follow Tarhalindur against me, that looked very suspicious to me. In addition, I was convinced that iamasusername was pro-town, so when she moved her vote from Tarhalindur to Jahudo, I began to doubt myself even more, and I ended up making a very stupid mistake, for which I apologize.

I still think that Tarhalindur is scum, and I am suspicious of Vi and Tom Mason as well. I will work on my cases on them over the next couple of days, although I will be out of town tomorrow and may not be able to get online until Tuesday.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Life has been lively recently. I've been trying to put out one good post in each of my games, and since this one was the most inactive among them, this became lowest priority.

^^ I, too, will try very hard to dedicate more time to this one as soon as I get done analyzing and summarizing 12.5 pages of notes I just finished compiling in another game that I am in.

<envision more and better excuses in this space so I don't have to type them and you don't have to read them>

I am sooo stealing that...

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Re: claiming, I already claimed back on December 29. I am a vanilla townie.

When Scheherazade summarized his case against her, Jazzmyn responded, not by showing that the case was wrong or even just denying the case, but by going negative (note that she referred to his case as "disingenuous".

I referred to his POST as disingenuous because it WAS disingenuous. We had already been through most of the content of that post repeatedly in which he misrepresented my posts. He was using the same old misreps to support the additions he made at the end. I asked him to try again, and I responded further (see my isolation posts #20, 23, 26 for instance). This is really getting old, Tarhalindur.

In fact, what's most striking here is that Jazzmyn seems to have absolute contempt for ANYONE who presents any kind of case at all against her

Contempt? Oh, the drama. I am not contemptuous of anyone; this is a game. I am often amused, occasionally annoyed, occasionally baffled, sometimes stumped, occasionally frustrated, most often delighted, and always learning. But never contemptuous. I cannot even fathom the kind of mindset that would be required to be

contemptuous

of anonymous players in an online game.

Jazzmyn's response to the Jahudo lynch yesterday could be town frustration.

Yes, it was indeed. As I said on the last Day, I screwed up with the Jahudo lynch, and I even took your advice about what to do with a useless player (me) and asked to be vigged or SKed. Then another player seemed to suggest that

that

was scummy of me. Which only added to my frustration this Day, since it seems a bit of a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" sort of thing.

However, note her additional defense today for being on the Jahudo wagon. Specifically: why is being on the Jahudo wagon even defense-worthy?

That was not a defence, it was an answer to someone's question about what I was thinking when I voted for Jahudo.

Instead, I'm seeing an attempt to avoid scrutiny for the Jahudo vote

One cannot avoid scrutiny when one's posts are all there for everyone to read. Scrutinize to your heart's content.

(guilty conscience?)

Actually, I do feel guilty about hammering Jahudo since he turned out to be town.

and tie EVERYTHING - even setbacks that might spur a rethinking of the situation - into a renewed case on another player.

I do not understand what you are talking about here. Please clarify so that I can address it.

As for renewing a case on you, well, that's because I still think that you are scum. I noted my reasons for finding your predecessor scummy back on December 13, and they have not diminished. Back then, in my post 547, I explained as follows:

In addition, in post #491, DoomCow purported to explain why he didn't vote for PP by saying, "As for me not voting PutaPuta, by the time I read her posts she was already at L-1. I wasn't willing to hammer after the claim."

However, PP was put at L-1 in post #450 on November 26 (and he was lynched on November 29). DoomCow's most recent post prior to PP being put at L-1 was on November 18 and DC didn't post at all between November 18 and December 1. So, either DC is lying about having seen when PP was at L-1 and lying about his reasons for not voting PP, or DC is admitting not only to actively lurking, but doing so to the extent that he made absolutely no comment on a player being at L-1 - not even to say that he wasn't comfortable hammering in light of the claim.

And yet, now he comes along and puts a player at L-1 without reading the thread, and justifies it by relying upon two other posts by two other players? This is way off base.

And how on earth does one justify having only 14 posts in the two full months that this game has been going on?

The lie/lurk/lynch combination is pretty compelling to me as indicative of scum.

You misinterpreted/mis-stated my case on you/DoomCow in your post 633, even though you were purportedly responding to a specific post in which I set out the basis for that case explicitly, and although you acknowledged that you might have misremembered something, you didn't bother to look at the posts to which I referred you, and instead still purported to use your misinterpretation/mis-statement as grounds to paint me as scummy. I'll do more on you later, as this is quickly becoming yet another humungous response to your humungous posts. That said, I have been wrong about two townies, so I will have to re-examine my own methods and try to avoid tunnel-visioning.

to claim that he needed to die even if he was town (HOW THE HELL IS THAT A TOWN MINDSET?)

This is not true, Tarhalindur. I made no such claim.

Jassmyn's justification for outright denial/evasion of cases.

I did not evade anything. I answered the questions, and I was getting sick and tired of Sche's continued misrepresentations of my words. Others were getting sick and tired of the Walls of Words, and asked that they stop. I concurred, as it really was getting tedious going over the same things repeatedly with Sche continuing to misrepresent my words, even after being shown quite clearly that he was doing so.

she's implying that it is an AXIOM that all cases against her must be invalid, which indicates that she's either FAR, FAR too overconfident or trying to use this as a shield to avoid explaining her actions).

I am implying no such thing and I have explained my posts and my actions. Although it is true that any case against me will be ultimately

wrong

, since I am not scum, that is not to say that any case against me would be prima facie

invalid

, since there may be things about my play that others view as suspicious. Pretty much every time a townie is mislynched, the case against them was ultimately wrong, but not necessarily invalid.

makes sense if Jazzmyn is trying to avoid giving detailed defense on the grounds that it would likely prove her scum.

No, I explained my posts and Sche kept misrepresenting them, and ignoring my actual words while inserting his own. It was annoying. But it had nothing to do with "trying to avoid giving detailed defence" and there are no grounds upon which I can or will be proven to be scum in this game.

(Also of note here: Jazzmyn is suddenly choosing to ignore the player who was her primary target during most of D1 and D2 and clearly her preferred target at the time.

This is misleading. I said I was going to ignore him

"for now, unless he has something new, relevant, or specific to say"

because we were doing nothing but going over the same things repeatedly. I didn't ignore him completely: I still had my vote on him and kept it there, and I was willing to and did, in fact, engage with him further when circumstances warranted.

Note that Jazzmyn goes out of her way to paint EVERYTHING her targets have done as scummy to the extent that she is unwilling to admit that ANYTHING her targets have posted is not scummy.

This is untrue, and your choice of the phrase "unwilling to admit" is bizarre. I can and will readily acknowledge that some of what my suspects have posted is not scummy, but I don't recall anyone asking me about that, and it is hardly something that I would start a discussion about after their deaths, at which time their roles are apparent. Had anyone asked, though, I would certainly have acknowledged the reality that not everything posted by anyone (including my suspects) has been scummy.

Jazzmyn has accused both of her main attackers of mindsets that she indicates in her own posts (for Scheherazade, it was misrepresentation and bad attitude; for myself, it seems to be confirmation bias).

No, I am not and have not intentionally misrepresented anyone, and you will have to point out examples of the "bad attitude" that you accuse me. Also, your confirmation bias is obvious, but I think that most of us engage in that sometimes, as it can be very difficult to avoid. In your case, don't forget that I also think you are scum because of your predecessor's lie/lurk/lynch trifecta, and because of your own behaviour since you replaced DoomCow, including the examples of your deceptions, exaggerations and misleading comments noted above.

That's not just hypocritical

It is not hypocritical at all, since I have not intentionally misrepresented anyone at any time, and you haven't demonstrated a "bad attitude" on my part.

Note that this assessment implies that Jazzmyn subconsciously recognizes misrepresentation, bad attitude, and confirmation bias in her own posts.

This "assessment" is incorrect, except to the extent that, as I said above, I think everyone engages in confirmation bias sometimes, and I am certainly not immune to it.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

13. Jazzmyn (???)

Ahem. Since I claimed four nearly four weeks ago in direct response to a post by

you

in which you requested that I do so, it strikes me as very odd indeed that you would now pretend not to have noticed.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Meh - I should have previewed. Obviously, I erred in duplicating the word "four" twice there, and the post should have read: Ahem. Since I claimed

four

nearly four weeks ago in direct response to a post by you in which you requested that I do so, it strikes me as very odd indeed that you would now pretend not to have noticed.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

@Jazzmyn 723: Are you serious? He forgot you claimed. (So did I.) Does that make him scummy?

When someome specifically requests a claim, receives a claim in response to his specific request and then later purports not to have noticed and pretends not to have asked, yes, I think that indicates scumminess indeed. Why do you think otherwise?

Don't you think it strange that someone would specifically ask for a claim from a specific person and later purport to have no knowledge of having asked for same, and purport to have no knowledge of having received a direct response, even when both the request and the response are right there for everyone to see?

If not, why not?

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Wow. I saw the last posts of the last day and the initial posts of this day in which Tarhalindur and TomMason are advocating my lynch (yet again) and where Tarhalindur claimed to have roleblocked me, etc., and I started to write a long reply but I've been sick with some kind of stomach bug, and in the meantime a lot has been written that changes some of what I wrote, so I will have to re-read the new posts again and respond accordingly.

But I am indeed vanilla town, so if Tarhalindur blocked me as he claims, it had no effect on anything. It should be glaringly apparent that I am not scum partners with any of Tarhalindur, TomMason, or Vi, since each and every one of them have been calling for my death repeatedly, well beyond what would typically be viewed as scum trying to bus a scum partner. It seems quite apparent to me that the scum have deliberately kept me alive, in fact, because they know that I am the weakest town player, and one who has a lot of suspicion on me, so they preferred to get rid of the strong town players first in order to give them a better shot at pulling off a scum win.

If Tahralindur is really a JoAT as he says, that leaves Vi and TomMason as the only remaining possible scum, in my view. The problem is that if there are two remaining scum, that means that either Tahralindur is lying about being a JoAT or that he got a false result on TomMason. Can someone please tell me in what circumstances a JoAT can get a false innocent report on someone? Is that only if there is a mafia Godfather or are there other possibilities?

I believe that Rhinox gambited as he says. Since I know that I am town, I cannot see Rhinox as scum. His analysis of the remaining roles seems sound at first blush, but I have to read everything again since I'm not entirely clear on how the balance of roles plays out, etc. Also, I still want to respond to some posts from late on the last day and early on this day, even though some of them have probably become redundant.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

I've been reading, and Rhinox's 778 and Tarhalindur's 779 make a great deal of sense to me, but I need to think/type out loud here.

I am not scum.
Rhinox is not scum.
So, if Tarhalindur is a JoAT, either Vi is the only remaining scum, or Vi and TomMason are both scum, with TomMason being a Godfather, since Tarhalindur got an innocent result on him. Since Rhinox targeted Vi but Vi is still alive, that means that she has a scum role that that cannot be NKed, or she is a scum Roleblocker.

And if Tarhalindur is a JoAT, that explains the third kill on Night 2, because it would, we are told, be too unbalanced to have 4 scum including a RB (or a non-nightkillable role) and an additional one-shot night kill. I don't know enough about how roles balance out to know if this is would be unbalanced or not. Is it unbalanced if there are 4 scum in total or only if there are 5 scum in total?

If Tarhalindur really is a JoAT, then that leaves

only

Vi and TomMason as possible scum. In that scenario, unless Vi is the

last

scum, it means that TomMason

has

to be a Godfather, given Tarhalindur's innocent result on him.

On the other side, if Tahralindur is not a JoAT, then he has been lying all along and is himself scum, either alone or with one of Vi or TomMason. If so, there still had to be some added scum power to explain the third kill on Night 2, though.

But if Tarhalindur is not a JoAT and has been lying all along, then what? It means he is scum, certainly, but alone or with TomMason? Because if he is scum with TomMason, then that means that Vi is town, and lynching her will mean game over and scum wins. If, on the other hand, Tarhalindur is scum alone, that also means Vi is town, but we would still have one more Day after he kills Rhinox off at night, hoping that TomMason would vote to lynch me in a nano-second in the end-game since Tom has been trying to have me lynched all game.

I, too, noticed how Tarhalindur's first post seemed to try to set up my lynch today, and how he's still trying to suggest that I'm scum if Vi isn't, but in the event that Vi flips town, that would actually leave only Tarhalindur and TomMason as possible scum, and if it isn’t game over at that point given the NK that would follow, it actually leaves only Tarhalindur himself as scum, i.e., a Roleblocker who blocked Rhinox last night and lied about it, etc.

But, in light of the 3 kills on Night 2 with nothing to explain it, I think the stronger case is Vi and TomMason as scum, so:

Vote: Vi

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Oi vey. Well, at least it appears that I was right about a couple of things: that I was wayyy out of my depth in this game, that Tarhalindur was scummy, that Vi was scummy, that I'm learning, and that I really should trust my instincts more instead of second guessing myself so much. It's been an awesome game, though, for my first non-Newbie game and I'm really looking forward to the end results.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Woot! Yay, town! Nicely done, Rhinox, and good choice, TomMason!

Regards,
Jazz

P.S. Vi: love your new avatar.

[Jazzmyn]

If I can ask for a quick straw poll, how many reading the thread actually thought I was going to be a sk until my role was revealed at the end? How many thought I was truly a vig?

I believed your vig claim and did not think you were a SK. I also thought your gambit was brilliant. Very nicely done, indeed.

Regards,
Jazz