Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[Tarhalindur]

Hello! See you again when I'm done rereading.

[Tarhalindur]

Notes after quick read and initial isolation reads:

Jahudo needs to claim as a matter of policy.

Jahudo and Vi are pinging my scumdar; Jahudo for his predecessor's D1 hammer and what looked like craplogic D2 and D3, Vi for actions early D1 (setup speculation and reaction to Scheherazade wagon) and for having the strongest association with a dead scum (but his actions today seem fairly town... hmm, need to reread him).

I need to take a much closer read of ribwich (now Huntress); reading him in isolation, he seems town, but he seemed scummy as all hell when I was first reading the thread.

Jazzmyn and Caboose need more thorough investigation.

ZazieR is unreadable due to lack of posting (which I assume is due to V/LA for reasons that involve ongoing games).

Iamausername and especially Tom Mason read town.

More later.

[Tarhalindur]

Setup speculation...? Are you talking about the stuff on Page 2, with explaining a standard role and giving an estimate on the number of scum based on what's normal for the setup size? I will concede that the bottom part of Vi 41 (a counter to Scheherazade's IMO well-intentioned fishing) was probably unnecessary, but still, that seems weak. :v
I can't do much about interactions with Juls. I thought she was fun to have around, but noticed at the start of D2 that she hadn't actually

said

much of anything.

Good response to the setup speculation. That alleviates some of my concerns about you.

The full list of concerns is as follows, including a concern that is now largely null:

- You were voted by Juls in the random stage (weak tell, but a scumtell nonetheless) and appeared to respond to her more than other players (possible connection tell).

- Setup speculation in the random stage (including a post concerning the dead doc, which does not look good in my book), though after sleeping on it and looking at your response, this is not as concerning as I originally thought.

- Your behavior towards Scheherazade wagon Day 1 (as far as I can tell, you were pushing the Scheherazade wagon while always finding a way to be on a lurkish player instead, behavior I would expect from a scum trying to take advantage of a townie fight such as the Scheherazade-Percy fight)
- Your behavior towards the Puta Puta wagon Day 2 (commented on him needing to post something yet never appeared to follow it up, late jump onto the wagon)

Ribwich (and Jahudo, for that matter) require considerably more dedicated posts to describe their behavior (probably outright PBPAs). Expect those shortly.

[Tarhalindur]

- Your behavior towards Scheherazade wagon Day 1 (as far as I can tell, you were pushing the Scheherazade wagon while always finding a way to be on a lurkish player instead, behavior I would expect from a scum trying to take advantage of a townie fight such as the Scheherazade-Percy fight)

I mostly avoided the Scheherazade wallfest because I thought the initial issue was being blown out of proportion, and even gave Scheherazade credit for shooting down his own newb-card defense. That said, I separately grilled Scheherazade for not going on the offense, which I was much more interested in. Had he done that the first, second, or maybe third time I asked, I wouldn't have gotten so frustrated with him.

Question here - how would you have expected scum to react to the Scheherazade wagon?

- Your behavior towards the Puta Puta wagon Day 2 (commented on him needing to post something yet never appeared to follow it up, late jump onto the wagon)

You're talking about Vi 409, right? I gave him one post, he posted something lame, and then in my next post I voted him.
If you're talking about before then, I did mention him in 331, and then shot him the Internet equivalent of dirty looks in a few other posts; but I could tell he was more than just this village's idiot, so I mostly ignored him before his vote to put al4xz to L-1.

Again, question - by "more than just this village's idiot", were you trying to say "so idiotic that he could be the idiot for many villages" or "something more than a village idiot"?

In other news: Ribwich PBPA is partially done, mainly because I keep looking at other players trying to make sense of what I'm seeing. My main conclusion so far is that I need to go back to the drawing board; there's a few players who I need to reevaluate after taking a closer look (iamausername in particular, who is now on my PBPA watchlist).

Unvote

- Jahudo has claimed, and I need time to take a closer look at the thread.

[Tarhalindur]

Question here - how would you have expected scum to react to the Scheherazade wagon?

Given that the two major opposing forces were both Town-side, I would predict that scum would:
*goad on the Scheherazade wagon, preferably with little scumhunting effort.
*join the wagon after the fight/argument has been established for a while, again economical on the reasoning.
*alternatively, ignore it altogether.

The people implicated by at least one of these are basically the people Jahudo is suspicious of, plus Gerrendus (Jahudo himself).

Good answer (quite close to my own conclusions, in fact). I asked because I thought - still think, in fact - your behavior towards the Scheherazade wagon *could* be a case of the second scum reaction (of course, if this was the case, at least you had the good sense to use unique reasoning).

Again, question - by "more than just this village's idiot", were you trying to say "so idiotic that he could be the idiot for many villages" or "something more than a village idiot"?

The former, although swap out "many villages" for "the global community".
Before he put al4xz to L-1 I saw him as a lurker and moron, but not one of the better lynch choices.[/quote]

Okay, that makes sense. If you had been using the other possible explanation, then I would have needed to grill you about why you didn't go after Gimbo earlier.

Now, it's time for me to make my own reveal: I somewhat overstated the case against you, primarily for reaction purposes. By the time I really started grilling you, I was already leaning towards you being town from what I had seen during my still-incomplete more thorough read, and continued to grill you mainly to solidify my own conclusion (by looking for pro-town responses to my questions).

You pass that last test with flying colors - while your response to the Scheherazade wagon Day 1 *could* be a case of scum trying to drive the wagons from the sidelines, the rest of your play indicates to me that this is not the case.

Back to rereading/PBPAs.

[Tarhalindur]

EBWOP: Damn quote tags...

[Tarhalindur]

Partial PBPA, Ribwich

I wouldn't really call what's happening right now to be rolefishing though. It's still not helpful to the town, but as long as nobody's stupid enough to go "Okay, I won't protect anybody because you think I'm an insane doc." it shouldn't provide any help to the scum.

I've never even heard of an insane doctor, but I'm assuming that means they think they're a doctor but everyone they protect actually dies instead. So, they're basically a vigilante that thinks they're a doctor? In that case, I would think there's no chance that they know from PM about this. What would be the point in calling them a doctor then?

Using Caboose algorithm for psychoanalysis of posts, I have determined that, without a doubt, al4xz is scum.

How did I miss this?

Vote: al4xz

What really catches my eye about this piece of setup speculation is that ribwich reccgnized that setup speculation doesn't actually help the town, yet engaged in setup speculation anyways. I'm still not sure whether this is a newb tell or a scumtell; if he was scum, would he have openly admitted that setup speculation did not help the town? If he was town, why didn't he realize that "useless to town" means "should be avoided"? (Because he didn't realize it could help scum? Possible... I wish he was still around to ask about this.)

There's also the 'CPR doctor', who protects his target if someone tries to kill them, but kills them if no one else tries to. It would actually make sense to tell that kind of doctor what they are.

That sounds like an awful role to have.

Looking at who died though, I think it's much more likely we aren't dealing with one of these kinds of doctors. It looks to me that farside22 was the mafia pick, curiouskarmadog tried protecting scum and got killed for it, and Xtoxm got killed by some third party.

Just of curiosity, if curiouskarmadog had tried to protect Xtoxm, would Xtoxm have not died then?

Trying to assign specific roles to specific kills so early in the game rings my scumdar alarm system. It's not the biggest tell of that type (that would be Sucks For Us!), but it's significant.

Shortly after this, ribwich is told (by known scum Juls... not sure what to make of that) to stop speculating about the setup. He then does so.

And I agree with strife. The wording of Sche's comment is very interesting. Initially I did not catch it but he was interested in who killed the scum player.

I don't see where the issue is with this. There's already good odds in the favor of us knowing what happened to the other two players. Xtoxm is the only one that we're really unsure about. And like ZazieR said, the odds of it being a pro town role is very slim unless that person was playing dumb.

And why are you so afraid of putting a vote now? Votes can put pressure on people, and it's a good way to get scumtells to come out. I may be partially biased though because I've never liked using FoS, but I think votes are a much better way to get your point across.

For making what I feel are invalid claims on someone and then not even really voting for them out of fear of making a bandwagon (and to help show that votes accomplish more than FoS's)

Unvote: al4xz Vote: Juls

My gut is telling me that the early 2-vote Juls wagon may have had distancing scum on it. Not sure which if either though - Vi reads town right now, Ribwich: see below.

I don't think what Scheherazade has done is very suspicious, but I do agree that any more talk about the setup should be ended.

Not only would it be idiotic of me, town or scum, to role-fish bluntly in the first post, only someone who skims posts rather than reading them would assume that I was role-fishing.

Except you were role-fishing. You even said it yourself, you just called it "role-fishing for scum."

At first I was thinking that what you did was just an honest mistake. There's a chance I would have even made a similar post at the time since I was unaware of how it could be bad for town. (Although now I can very easily see why it is.) But, for you to even deny that what you did was role-fishing makes me more suspicious of you.

Unvote: Juls
Vote: Scheherazade

If ribwich WAS distancing from Juls earlier, this is exactly what I would expect to see: hopping over to another wagon at the earliest possible opportunity (only about 14 hours after he voted Juls, in fact). The "I thought it could be an honest mistake" part also doesn't sit well with me; I seem to recall seeing scum in past games trying to justify jumping onto a town wagon in the same way.

1. Scheh is a skilled Mafia player who did a good job hiding his true intentions behind the mask of a Townie. Scum.
2. Inexperienced player to Mafia. Town/Scum. - Out of the question, he's claimed experience. And if he denies that, he's a liar. LAL! Cept for doc liars.
3. Slip-up made by a skilled mafia player, but was read differently from what he ment to convey. Town.

If the first were the case, I wouldn't exactly say he did a good job at it.

Not really game-relevant... this seems to indicate that ribwich didn't add much reasoning to the early Scheherazade wagon. Hmm. Scum wagon-pushing?

L-3 isn't a big deal either. If scum is actually dumb enough to turn that into a quicklynch, they might as well paint targets on their heads.

Mafia theory, anyone?

Percy made very many valid points in his post, and your refusal to even try to defend yourself against them just makes you look more suspicious.

Points such as...? The AGLEED (or, more formally, simply agreeing with other people's reasoning instead of restating it/adding new reasoning) is noted here.

I was looking for a over-the-rooftops explosion from Juls, or something along those lines. Something involving attention shifting from Juls. Seeing as I didn't get any reaction (or very little), I decided to call off my little bluff.

I'm not really surprised at all that it didn't work, but I can see what you were trying to do. The problem is that the people that did notice pretty much only saw that as you making a meaningless vote, and if Juls saw it before you explained she probably just assumed it wasn't even worth responding to.

There is nothing behind it. He's deluded. Clear scumtells

If by clear scumtells you were referring to that OMGUS you just did, plus the unprovoked vanilla townie claim and statement that we should look elsewhere, then I agree. Those do look like clear scumtells.

I still think Scheherazade is suspicious, but you look even scummier in my eyes.

Unvote: Scheherazade Vote: Der Hammer

1) That first part of this post is pinging my scumdar. Ribwich explains why a townie's attempt to get reactions might not work... when the townie was trying to get reactions from a now-confirmed scum. This may be indirect defense here.

2) ribwich was the first person to take note of that Der Hammer vote, and left the Scheherazade wagon to follow up on it. That's a major point in ribwich's favor; it looks like genuine scumhunting to me.

First off, can everyone please preview your posts before you submit it? Those broken quote tags are annoying.

@rib:
I feel the need to point out that his vanilla townie claim came in defense to strife's declaring him as part of a scumpair with scheh. But you are correct in that it was still unproviked.

I understand why he did it, but it was still completely unneccesary. Nobody should be claiming that early.

Yes, completely sarcastic. The original comment I made was completely sincere, and mere commentary on the start of the game since I was in a rush, and just wanted to post my first post of the game before people accused me of lurking. I reacted badly to your initial misjudging of my statement and acted childishly. It end of esuclated from there really, and its interesting to see who has jumped on my bandwagon..

So at what point were you not being sarcastic anymore? Were these legit posts or just more childish acting?

I'm not linked with Sheh in anyway, just a lowly vanilla. Look elsewhere good sirs and madams.

There is nothing behind it. He's deluded. Clear scumtells

There's a few things I want to say about Scheherazade, but that's going to take a while. To be honest, I've only skimmed through his last few posts, so I want to make sure it's not things that have been already addressed.

Ribwich looks pretty damn town to me here - this reads as genuine scumhunting, not a scum imitation.

ribwich is also sort of on my radar for changing his vote and mind so often. Obviously, I thought he had less than valid reasons to vote for me, but I think his explanation of his vote for Juls doesn't quite justify a vote. And the vote for al4xz may have been a joke, but was there any call for it? I mean, al4xz already had votes and therefore pressure on him. ribwich's comment looks like "lol, I'm bandwagoning." In six pages he's voted for four different people.

First off, I've voted for five people. If you're going to accuse me of rapid vote changing, do it right. The first two were clearly jokes. The vote on Juls was merely to prove a point that voting accomplishes more than FoS's. (And it was so I could get my vote off of a random/joke vote.) I then had my vote on you because I felt you were the most suspicious at the time. Then Hammer made some comments that made me more suspicious of him, so my voted shifted. I'm going to have my vote on whoever I feel is most suspicious at the time, and in day one that is most likely going to change quite a bit.

I'm still a bit paranoid about ribwich's Juls vote, but he's got a pretty good explanation for it. Solid reasoning here

@ribwich: Why do you suspect Der Hammer more than Scheherazade?

Well, a lot of it is going to depend on how Hammer responds to my question of how many of his posts were serious, but right now it's because I can still give the benefit of the doubt to Scheherazade. Even after all that's happened, I can understand how someone can legitmately think what he was doing would help the town. Hammer, on the otherhand, has done things that I can't understand why a townie would do. He's OMGUS'd, claimed when he was nowhere near being lynched, and told us that we should look elsewhere rather than try to find something out of his posts.

Again, solid reasoning. Ribwich is looking increasingly town here.

al4xz, I just want to make sure I understand your reasoning. Are you suspicious of Percy because you believe the distancing between him and Schez is artificial? If yes, does this mean you would no longer be suspicious of Percy if Schez was confirmed to be town?

Asking questions based off of the logical conclusion of another player's reasoning = pro-town.

Actually, that was a bad choice of words on my part. I meant if Schez were lynched and then the mod told us he was town.

And that clears a possible quibble out of the way...

I suppose it's because it's similar to how somebody that brings up the possibility of a jester is usually scum trying to save their partner. But I don't really think bringing up the possibility of a godfather would really be detrimental to town. I think in a closed game we should be always be wary of things like godfathers and cop sanity.

I still don't like setup speculation Day 1 unless you're using the Pie massclaim-Day-1 style of play or the setup appears to be highly symmetric (in short, setup speculation is good when you have a halfway decent chance of breaking the setup open and bad otherwise).

Yes, I realize this is setup speculation/Mafia theory. I'll shut up now. (I'll start back on setup speculation if/when I survive to massclaim.)

Der Hammer, I'm still waiting on an answer. At what point were you no longer playing childishly and your posts can actually be considered serious?

Theoretically, this post (and the posts before it) *could* be scum pressuring a weak townie... but I doubt that in the extreme.

Ah, I already explained this. No matter.
Alright, here's the situation in a nutshell (or in a forum, however you wish to see it). Juls posts something kinda scummy. One or two people jump on the wagon in quick succession. I decide to join in but with a no reasoning vote so that I would appear scummy. In this way, if Juls was a scum, she might attempted to direct attention to me since I voted w/o reasoning behind it in that post.

I've seen people do these types of things all the time as townies, but I've never understood why. The biggest problem with it is how are you supposed to know if Juls is scum trying to divert a bandwagon or town that honestly thought you were acting scummy?

1) This post amuses me given 20/20 hindsight.
2) Ribwich has pretty good reasoning here, but this is indirect defense of known scum Juls. The question is, did he know Juls was scum?

I'm not sure if Der Hammer is ignoring my question or if he just keeps missing it. Maybe this will make it stand out more.

Der Hammer, at what point were your posts serious?

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

Are you referring to my question to al4xz? It was not intended for that to lead to more setup discussion. I had just not worded it properly and the question was misinterpretted.

Null post here - makes sense for him to post this either as town or as scum.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Glad someone agrees with me.

Comments like this make me wonder if you're even trying at this game. You're either horrible at detecting sarcasm, or you're actually encouraging anti-town behavior. My vote on you is staying.

Village idiot: Abbreviation: Vi! o.O

Somebody clearly didn't read Vi's wiki page.

On the one hand, Ribwich is still making a case against Der Hammer... on the other hand, this *could* be good scum pushing on a weak townie. I'm still leaning towards Ribwich being town (or possibly SK, where the "lack of scumhunting" tell shouldn't apply).

Der Hammer, what specifically is it about strife's interactions with you that make you suspicious of him? Even if it turns out that you are town, I do not believe that strife has done anything wrong. The way I look at it, you were acting scummy and strife called you out on it. And why specifically him instead of the rest of us that are voting for you? Is it just because he was the first one to accuse you?

Again, asks for explanation from Der Hammer. This really doesn't look like a Mafia attack to me.

I agree with iam. It seemed like an unnecessary comment and an attempt to "look town."

I also don't like Gerrendus's "I think Scheh is scummier but I'll vote Hammer because he's more useless" vote.

This could come from either Townwich or Scumwich. Nulltell.

To the people suspicious of Al4xz and/or Gerrendus: I'm assuming this means you are just as much if not more suspicious of Scheh? Their actions making them scum only really makes sense to me under the assumption that Scheh is also scum.

Again, asks questions based on logical conclusions (can point out scum inconsistencies). I approve - more pro-town behavior.

How so?

If Scheh were town, I don't think they would have been making those comments. I don't even think they would have bothered changing their vote, since a lynch on either Scheh or Der would have essentially been the same. Why risk getting more attention on yourself unless you were protecting your partner?

This line of reasoning leads to a little too much WIFOM for my tastes

Looking through the thread again, one person that sticks out to me is TAX. He hasn't really done anything other than random voting, suspecting people without actually voting, and then just dissapears until he conveniently shows up right when the day is over. Looks to me like he's trying to avoid getting noticed.

Vote: TAX

My suspicions for Scheh are pretty much the same as they were before. If he is scum, I have a good feeling at least one of the people that switched their vote to Hammer at the end are also scum.

Hunt, hunt, hunt the scumbags...

Well, since my entire argument against TAX is that he was a useless player, since he's getting replaced anyway I'm going to go ahead and

unvote

Personally speaking, this will provide us more information, and we don't need a village idiot dragging us down later on in the game (wasting a lynch now to gain some info is alright, wasting a lynch later can be disastorous). Hey, I just realzied something:

Village idiot: Abbreviation: Vi! o.O

You know what I just realized, there's no 'if' in that quote. You refer to DH as village idiot, without an 'if', and you're talking about wasting a lynch, without an 'if'. I have some problems with this.

I knew there was something I never liked about that post, but somehow I kept missing that. I think I was just mentally putting in the "if DH is town" part. Because really, it was a completely valid argument if that was included. But the way he wrote that, it looks like he already knew DH was going to be town.

And I'm unsure how not having a 'if' on the wasting lynch part is bad.

Well, to me it implies that you already knew the lynch was going to be a waste.

And here ribwich paraphrases/extends on existing reasoning (this is pro-town).

i think i'm the only lurker who actually WANTS people to acknowledge my existence in this game, but that apparently ain't happenin'

*runs and hides in lurkerdom again*

I just assumed you hadn't fully caught up yet since there weren't any real posts from you. Why are you trying to lurk?

Probably scumhunting, could be distancing instead. Previous behavior leans towards the former.

That's as far as I've been able to get so far.

Conclusions:

- From what I've seen here, Ribwich, and by extension Huntress, is very unlikely to be Mafia. SK, maybe, if he's smart and scumhunting as SK, but my current impression is that there's a better candidate for that (Jahudo, whose actions are suspect but gave me the impression of scumhunting in my second reread... need to PBPA him to be sure.)

[Tarhalindur]

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

Actually, I'd recommend outright replacement; I just had to ask for her replacement in one of my games after she failed to pick up a prod.

Mod: Request prod and/or replacement of ZazieR

[Tarhalindur]

Since I seem to be at L-1... policy is clear enough.

I am a Jack of All Trades. I have four 1-shot special abilities, which can be summarized as follows: Cop, Doc (can self-protect), Vig, and Roleblock.

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

[Tarhalindur]

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.

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

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

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.

That's not the biggest issue I'm seeing with Tar's claim either way. The lack of a N0 action (or any note that none occured) makes me think maybe Tar forgot this was a night start in making up a fake claim. Although, a bit of reverse-Burden-of-Proficiency; Tar is not a player I'd expect to be that sloppy.

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.

I'm still in favour of massclaim. I'm always in favour of massclaim. But unless everybody else is claiming too, no vig should counter Tar if they shot Zade, they should just shoot Tar tonight instead.

I'm massclaim-amenable myself, but that's because I suck at normal scumhunting and am pretty good at setup analysis.

[Tarhalindur]

PBPA, Jazzmyn

I have left a few posts off. Those posts which I have left off were those which I considered largely irrelevant to any case against 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

While it's not necessarily anti-town to delay, the phrasing here makes me wonder if Jazzmyn was trying to play both the Scheherazade and Der Hammer wagons here (which is a very strong scumtell).

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

Why did this bother you? More importantly, why did Scheherazade's actions make him more likely to be scum (the paradigm in which all player actions must be assessed)?

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

Technically correct. Also offers litte real insight into who Jazzmyn thinks is scum (it does imply that Scheherezade is a higher priority than Der Hammer).

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.

I don't like this overview post. Note how Jazzmyn leaves herself a way to come back later to each player she finds townish, and the comments on two other players without following them up - this could easily be Jazzmyn painting suspicion on townies (in case she needs to try to get them lynched later) while keeping plausible deniability.

Also note how Jazzmyn refers to DerHammer voting for Scheherazade "for a dubious reason", without elaborating. This will be important later.

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

Why did you still get more of a scum-vibe from Scheherazade? Note how little Jazzmyn has explained of why she suspected Scheherazade during the course of this PBPA (abrasive playstyle is the only thing that Jazzmyn clearly found scummy about Scheherazade, and that's craplogic since abrasive playstyle alone is NOT a scumtell).

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.

Um, that doesn't look so much like a strawman as like a (badly phrased) request for you to elaborate on the reasoning behind "and I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy."

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.

Since Scheherazade isn't with us any more, I'll hazard a guess: He was trying to understand why somebody making valid points was enough reason to stop suspecting them, given the logical flaw in that argument that he pointed out above.

Now, the question for us us: Did you simply fail to understand this or were you deliberately misrepresenting Scheherazade's logic?

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."

I'm not seeing the explanation. Why was Der Hammer's reasoning for his vote dubious? More importantly, where did you explain that the reason for his vote was dubious? Maybe I'm missing something in the isolation read, but I'm not seeing.

Also note Jazzmyn's continued reference to nebulous "previously mentioned" reasoning, to an extent that suggests that Jazzmyn was trying not to offer reasoning at all.

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

Why does this look so much like using large words simply to avoid being pinned down to a specific position? (Rhetorical question, but the unwillingness to be pinned down that I'm seeing here IS a scumtell.)

@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.

I call bullshit on this craplogic. This is a logical extension question, where you take an implication from someone's post and ask for clarification in order to expose any holes in the original reasoning.

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.

Again, craplogic.

Let us consider these statements: If "It is possible that [Percy] was rabble rousing against Scheherazade" and "I cannot interpret this as scummy because I happen to agree with him about Sche and I think he made several valid points"*, then the implication is that rabble-rousing is scummy but you are ignoring it because you agree with Percy. The logical flaw here is that just because someone is making valid points does not mean that he or she is town. The only way that your logic is NOT flawed is if you assumed that someone making valid points does, in fact, mean that they are town. Given this, Scheherazade's question makes perfectly good sense as a logical extension question intended to see if your reasoning was self-consistent.

* - edited slightly to more strongly show the implied cause-effect relationship

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.

I'm surprised Jazzmyn didn't consider town tunnel-vision, but other than that this part is solid.

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[/quote]

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

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

While your explanation/summary of your posts is good, I do not understand why you were so certain that Scheherazade was not confused...

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

As far as I can tell, it wasn't Scheherazade who was misrepresenting in the Scheherazade/Jazzmyn squabble, but rather Jazzmyn. See above for details.

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

And he was being disingenuous... how, exactly? Explain in detail, please, because I'm not seeing it. Especially seeing as, as far as I can tell, Scheherazade was RIGHT about you dodging questions... and as far as I can tell, the player who was being disingenuous and misrepresenting another player's views was YOU.

'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.

Misrepresentation on a massive scale. Let's take a look at his case against you, shall we?

@Jazzmyn: Sure.

The first four posts are fluff posts, with random voting, etc.

In your first real post, you cast a vote like this:

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

You voted not because you thought I was behaving like scum, but because you didn't like my attitude. You admit that you aren't even convinced that my initial post was anything but an innocent error: you're voting because you're bothered.

This makes me think you might be scum because 1) you're more interested in lynching somebody objectionable than somebody scummy and 2) you take a very conservative position, rather than condemning me and staking your reputation on it.

Furthermore, you jumped on a bandwagon at a point where you wouldn't face much scrutiny but might get a townie lynched.

The next time you post is to repeat an accusation made by Caboose against me which was 1) untrue and 2) unrelated by you or Caboose to my scumminess. Caboose merely notes that it "really, really, really pisses" him off.

So not only are you not contributing to scum-hunting and parroting another player's opinion, you seem to favour emotional play over logical play in a second instance. Considering how carefully you try to word your posts, this strikes me as odd. It makes me think that you are aware of the mistake you've made twice.

Another post, promising another post.

Your next post, individual post #7, contains

1) a cryptic statement which you refused to explain when I questioned you about it,

2) parroted sentiments to the effect
--a) that Der Hammer's vanilla claim was suspect,
--b) that ribwich's voting behaviour was potentially scummy,
--c) and that al4xz acted oddly in his exchange with Juls,

3) and the instruction that Der Hammer's vote for me "must be added to what [you] wrote above." When I asked you to add it yourself to your own analysis, you accused me of failing to notice your post.

The first is interesting mostly in your reaction in subsequent posts.

The second is interesting because I think in your "read" you merely scoured the thread for other people's opinions. If you had no original content to add, then a townie would probably ask questions. By repeating other people's ideas, I think you were trying to give the impression that you were contributing without doing so, either in the form of original analysis, ideas or questions.

The third is, again, mostly interesting for your later posts. You could easily have updated your opinion of Der Hammer, but didn't. You just mimicked another player, ZazieR.

Two more fluff posts, notable mostly because you made a non-committal noise after ribwich addressed one of the suspicions you raised in your post. I guess that means you didn't suspect him any more.

Your next post, individual post #10, simply confirms that you're voting based on a scummy-vibe, which compels you to vote for me.

After that, you finally respond to me, having already ignored my first set of questions directed at you.

By "respond," I don't mean "answered." You spent more time repeating your previous positions and trying to avoid answering my questions than it would likely have taken to answer them directly. This leads to a run-around where you continue to attack me for asking you questions while repeating yourself. I think it's deliberate evasion.

When I cast my vote against you, you simply accused me of disingenuous posting. Again, you avoid answering the simple question I've been asking for eleven days. It was a stellar performance, but I think you're acting like a mafia player.

Let's see. At a bare minimum, I see the following points that Scheherazade made against you:

- You posted little unique content, largely following where other players had led.
- You refused to provide additional explanation/reasoning for your positions or elaboration on those positions when asked.
- You attacked players on Day 1 because you found them useless rather than scummy (there is a logical way for this attack to be rendered invalid, but I haven't seen any evidence that you used it).

Given this alone, your accusation that Scheherazade was attacking you for not finding Der Hammer scummy is, as noted, a blatant misrepresentation of his case against (and, in fact, a true strawman).

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).

Point out to me exactly where and how Scheherazade was attacking you for not jumping on the Der Hammer wagon... because as far as I can tell, he was attacking you for your failure to provide a full explanation for not finding him scummy (attacking the reasoning rather than the conclusion*), and if this is the case your representation of Scheherazade's case against you is, in fact, a misrepresentation.

* - Just because a conclusion is true does not necessarily mean that the logic behind it is sound.

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.

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 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.

Again, a misrepresentation on YOUR part. His attack on you was that you had offered nothing NEW to the game, even when you did have time to post.

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 don't know about Scheherazade, but I didn't see any explanation... just a referral back to your original comment and an attack on Scheherazade for not accepting your originally given reasoning.

I also, personally, consider your claim that your original post was clear utterly and completely wrong, considering that at least two players now have found it lacking (in my case, your Der Hammer post for the invalid logic and the "I'll take this into account" post for failing to ever elaborate on HOW Der Hammer's vote affected your thoughts on him).

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.

Your failure to explain exactly HOW or WHY Der Hammer's vote affected your reasoning about him, other than that you still found Scheherazade scummier, perhaps?

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

At the risk of starting a semantics argument... yes it does, especially when combined with a failure to elaborate on your reasoning or a failure to look into players who were not either attacking you or already under serious scrutiny.

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.

Then why not comment on any players who were not either attacking you or already under suspicion?

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.

Unless I failed a spot check somewhere, this is the right answer to the wrong question: I was under the impression that Scheherazade was looking for elaboration about your stated reasons for your conclusion that Scheherazade was still scummier than Der Hammer.

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

By referring him back to material that he indicated that he found inadequate (by asking follow-up questions and attacking him when he did not accept your original reasoning? No, you're the dishonest one here.

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

That's funny, he's not the one who was building manufactured allegations on a dishonest foundation. You, however, were.

Oh, and as long as I'm here, Scheherazade's own rebuttal of this post:

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.

This is clear misrepresentation. Not only does it ignore the real, cited reasons for my vote, it's fabricated weak reasons of its own in order to discredit my vote. It is scummy behaviour.

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).

Incorrect. My point is that she didn't find Der Hammer suspicious but was set on my lynch, but didn't lift a finger to stop Der Hammer's lynch. If she didn't find him scummy, then it's reasonable to assume that she didn't find the arguments against him correct. If she didn't find them correct, why was she unconcerned with pointing out the flaws in them?

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.

Alignment claim, not role-claim. That I'd argue from the basis that I'm town aligned is all but a given in this game.

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.

The cryptic statement pertained to Percy. I've made that very clear. She has not answered it in the least. First she accused me of burning a strawman when I asked her a question. Then she ignored it completely. The statement had nothing to do with Der Hammer.

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

Agreement without advancement is useless. It could be worse than useless if it's abused by the mafia to manipulate the town (the peer pressure effect, or perhaps mob mentality).

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.

I made clear that the "scouring" remark was opinion. It's one of the reasons why I chose to highlight the facts and give my interpretation separately.

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.

This appears to be the second of only two instances in this post where she addresses my accusation directly.

@Jazzmyn:
Let me be more clear:
Your individual post #7 states that you don't find Der Hammer particularly suspicious, but notes odd behaviour. As an after thought, you add Der Hammer's vote, but reserve analysis for a later post.
Your post #11 gives an opinion on his actions, but not on him.
Your post #12 is an attempt to attack me for asking you your opinion on Der Hammer.
Your post #16 is repetition and the declaration that you don't understand my confusion.
None of your other posts
So I say you didn't "update" your

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

You never answered any questions about your Percy remark.
You never explained exactly what your opinion of Der Hammer was as a player.

The Percy remark can be traced like this:
Post #7: You make it.
Post #11: You accuse me of making a strawman because I asked you a question.
Post #12: You repeat that I'm creating a strawman by asking you a question.

You never address it again, though I mention it in two subsequent posts directed at you.

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

Tedious and distracting my foot - Scheherazade has an active case against you and you simply refuse to respond to his points against, even after he just rebutted many of your points. More to the point, you consider Scheherazade the player most likely to be scum, and you just decide to ignore his arguments.

That's voteworthy by itself, especially given how this post implies that

you had made up your mind on Scheherazade and nothing he posted could change this

. (What I would give for my vig shot so I could simply take matters into my own hands here... my Gods, DoomCow was an idiot...)

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

Let's see:

Part 1: I don't buy your defense to "not asking questions" after your hostility to Scheherazade for asking you to elaborate on your reasoning. Your defense about only targeting players already under suspicion also falls flat to me, considering how little you discussed players not already under suspicion (it's possible, I'll grant that, but I'm not buying it). You are correct in one area, though: You weren't fence-sitting.

Part 2: Which doesn't explain why you don't offer comments/questions on other players... just why you might be less active overall in this game.

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

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

Jazzmyn conclusions on Gerrendus reek of IIoA.

Her conclusions on Puta Puta are scummy as hell, and not just for the reasons previously discussed by other players. Note how she notes that Puta Puta is "useless and anti-town" but does not vote him for that after her comment to Vi Day 1 about how the choice was between useless and more useless... in a manner that appeared to conflate being useless with being scummy.

* - Yes, he was, even I'll admit that. What's worse is that I have no idea why...

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.

Credit where credit is due - Jazzmyn is right here, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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?

I got the impression that he, if not was, then at least COULD have been asking why you didn't oppose the Der Hammer wagon more, rather than why you didn't push harder on his wagon.

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

"But clearly, I cannot drink the WINE IN FRONT OF ME..." (Please note: that particular bit of Mafia theory is my favorite thing to subvert as Mafia.)

@ 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

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

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

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

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.

I must disagree with this characterization - after this last reread I found his play the most obviously pro-town play in this game.

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.

Why does this change the proper response to his behavior?

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.

Uh, let's be more specific here: Even without Vi's comment, your defense here is fundamentally a giant pile of WIFOM. After all, there is a perfectly good reason why you might have taken the actions you did as scum: because it's not what scum are supposed to do and therefore makes you look pro-town.

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

Holy Sucks For Us! Tell, Batman!

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

Admittedly a decent argument against me. Unfortunately, since I am not DoomCow I cannot answer for his reasoning in any way, other than best speculation.

More interestingly: 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?

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

Can't speak for Jahudo, but I don't find that the points against you have been addressed...

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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

It doesn't (hence my "poor phrasing" comment). I was merely explaining why I forgot to specifically mention "no action N0" when I claimed.

Conclusions:

Given Jazzmyn's behavior towards Scheherazade D1 and D2 (including her failure to rebut his perfectly reasonable case) and craplogic, I only have three words to say here:

DIE, SCUM, DIE.

Okay, six.

Unvote, Vote: Jazzmyn

[Tarhalindur]

@Tarhalindur: Could you condense that giant PbPA of ribwich to a sentence or two? I have some ideas of what it would look like, but for the sake of psychology I would like it to come from your text box.

Ribwich was somewhat scummy at the beginning of Day 1, but his play beginning around the middle of Day 1 has convinced me that he is probably town.

@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. Tag errors aside, I'm not seeing anything to criticize in it.

@616: Why is Jazzmyn a more viable lynch?

Pardon me for speaking for Jahudo, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that we have less than two days until deadline and it doesn't look like his preferred lynch is getting traction.

If you think the case for Jazzmyn is good, Vi, would you mind voting her? I'd really rather not have Jahudo lynched today, but that's starting to look like the lesser of two evils here.

[Tarhalindur]

Mod, can we have a mass prod and a 24-hour deadline extension (so that other players have a chance to look over the Jazzmyn case)?

Also, at approximately what time in hours will deadline fall?

[Tarhalindur]

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.

Just because you choose to ignore the case against you doesn't mean that you won't be lynched for it. Quite the opposite, if I have anything to say about it.

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.

Let's see.

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.

)

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.

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.

I can't decide whether to use the "Bullshit. If you read the entirety of my PBPA, you should have seen that the strongest points against you stand on their own merits. For a nice summary, see the end of this post." angle or the "Given your reaction to my PBPA and your apparent cherry-picking of its weaker parts to make my case look weaker - or, as we like to call it, "strawmanning" - this is rather hypocritical considering your early attacks on Scheherazade" or the "wait, and you're not exhibiting confirmation bias by just pointing out everything that supports your conclusion that the person you find scummy is scum why, exactly?" angle.

I suppose I could use all of the above...

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.

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

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).

2) Nice appeal to emotion there.

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

But not the most important ones, which comprise the core of my case against you.

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.

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.

IC Tip: to add a link, go to the page you want to link to, copy the URL address, then paste it in your post and surround it with URL tags. You can use the format [ url = pastedaddress ]Preferred name of link[ /url ], without the spaces in the URL tags, to put a title on your link.

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.

This is mostly sound logic, so good marks here (with the exception of your inclusion of "rude and obnoxious", which is a perfectly valid playstyle which can be very useful for scumhunting - TheStatusQuo, or TSQ, is probably the shining example here).

Also, for future reference: Some experienced players have been known to act useless Day 1, despite this being scummy, in order to draw scum out of the woodwork. See Mini Normal 594: Satin Doll Showdown for a good example of this from Glork Day 1 (as well as a good example of my playstyle as Mafia).

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?[/quote]

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.

Jazzmyn conclusions on Gerrendus reek of IIoA.

What does IIoA mean?

Information Instead of Analysis, a Tarhalindur Standard Tell. Instead of wasting thread space on explaining...

Here's a nice example of how to link to a page... say, the MafiaWiki page about my Standard Tells.

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.

The former reason does not hold up. There are two good reactions to players that are consistently anti-town. The first, and generally preferred, is to vig/investigate the hell out of such players. The second is to lynch those players anyways. (The first solution is generally preferred, hence my comment about vigging below.)

The latter reason is, however, good.

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?

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).

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).

Observe this handy example:

Vig/SK trying to play like one/Investigative role: If we don't lynch Jazzmyn today, I would really appreciate it if you would deal with her tonight.

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?

Yes. It also becomes easier to ask why whoever made the error didn't spot that error in the first place. (See: any number of political investigations.)

Admittedly a decent argument against me.

Gee, thanks.

We like to call it "damning with faint praise". I'm sure you do too.

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.

Reasonable.

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

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

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

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?

Which suggests to me that DoomCow also follows the "investigate players you have no read on" school of thought.

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.

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

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.)

3) I consider OMGUS a null tell unless OMGUS is the only stated reason for a non-random vote. OMGUS for crap reasons can be spotted perfectly well from the craplogic instead of the OMGUS, and it makes perfectly good sense for a townie to OMGUS a player when the player he's OMGUSing is using blatant craplogic.

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. [/quote]

I believe that you are either misreading or misrepresenting my statement. I was referring to MY OWN speculation about your motives being hypocritical in light of my defense for DoomCow's actions.

DIE, SCUM, DIE.

Oh, the drama.

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

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

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

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. These main elements of the case against you are:

A) Consistent and repeated misrepresentation (either intentionally or otherwise) of cases against you in a manner that can reasonably be interpreted as a strawman defense.
B) Consistent and repeated refusal to explain your reasoning or elaborate on your reasoning when asked, instead referring questioners back to earlier posts and claiming that they speak for themselves when clearly at least two players have found that this is not the case.
C) Repeated refusal to respond to cases against you for any length of time, with the likelihood of such refusal being strongly correlated with the strength of the case against you.
D) Repeated use of bad logic in your cases, as laid out in my PBPA.

Any ONE of these four elements is sufficiently scummy for me to conclude that you are likely scum, let alone all four.

[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. (No, I haven't had a chance to check it out yet.)

I know of two ways to defend yourself from attack, which both have the same goal. The first is to explain the reasoning behind your actions and why they are not scummy, which is intended to convince other players that other players are a better lynch than you are. The second is to try to show other players why a second player has been even scummier than you are, which is intended to show other players that the second player is a better lynch than you are (and to show that you are being pro-town by scumhunting).

Ordinarily, a combination of both is preferred. In this case, however, the case against me is based on the actions of my predecessor and are clearly, by even my own reckoning, scummy, so that option is closed to me. Therefore, I am relying on the second method, both to get a real scumbag lynched and to show that I, unlike my predecessor, am being pro-town.

[Tarhalindur]

Well, I just started posting again since yesterday. That's why I've been absent for a while. I should have let you known about it, but it was rather unexpected.

First of all, Tar's claim. This would explain why nobody was killed during N1 if it's the truth. The only thing that bothers me is the weak doc. I've played one game (mini 656) which had a weak doc, but that player knew that he was a weak doc. If that's usually the case (that a weak doc knows that he's a weak doc), then why would he protect someone without knowing a thing? But there could be many reasons for this so I'm only noting this.
And I also advise not to outguess a player's action. I tried with that weak doc, but I was terribly wrong. Maybe it's strange to us that DC investigated Tom, if he's telling the truth, instead of Scheza, it could be that he had a reason for it. It's wrong to say that it's likely fake for doing something you wouldn't have done.

About the massclaim, I wouldn't mind doing it now. It would give us an impression about the set-up. What's the main reason for not doing it today?

Like I said to the mod, I would post today. Although it only exists out of some my opinion about some important things. I will respond to the points made against me, Tar's case against Jazz and I'll post my suspicions tomorrow as well.
Thanks for the extension.
And I hope that everyone had a happy Christmas this year.

Wait wait wait... nice waffling and Information Instead of Analysis, I say! (Note the failure to come down on either side, instead using Mafia theory to play both sides of my claim.)

I'm not going to follow up on it with a vote just yet (Jazzmyn is a higher priority), but I won't be forgetting this anytime soon.

ZazieR, I want you to post your analysis of every player in the game other than yourself, and I want it yesterday.

[Tarhalindur]

I'm back, unless Bluehost (

Daykill: Bluehost

- no that's not a real kill) says otherwise.

First up, it would appear that I soaked up one of the kills last night (I was able to send in my night action before I lost access: I used my shield - aka protection - targeting myself, in the expectation that I was a good Mafia kill choice).

Second, I'd assume we're in LyLo until proven otherwise, given my sense of design (15-4 doesn't sound right unless we have another miller). My gut says that we're probably looking at 4 town, 2 full Mafia, 1 Mafia Traitor (5 scum is probably too many), but 4 town, 2 Mafia, 1 SK masquerading as Vig is also possible.

Third, I do believe that a massclaim is in order at any rate, given that we're no more than one day from LyLo even in the best case.

Fourth, I'll look over things again ASAP. I need to double-check Jazzmyn, for several reasons: 1) it's likely LyLo, and I'd double-check my main cases regardless; 2) her comment about being vigged yesterday actually seemed like genuine disappointment, 3) yes, she was a leading candidate yesterday, but something about the haste to put pressure on her today feels off to me, and 4) I was reading an article over on MTGS that I hadn't seen before, since I don't usually check the thread in question earlier today while MafiaScum was down, and I want to reassess my case against Jazzmyn in light of that.

Oh yeah, and there's the small matter of ZazieR, who REALLY caught my eye with that short IIoA post at the end of Day 3.

[Tarhalindur]

Ooo, that's an interesting article. Thanks for sharing!

2) her comment about being vigged yesterday actually seemed like genuine disappointment

I wondered the same thing. Asking to be killed for the good of the Town brings back bad memories of my first game (where I was Town).

Good thing Jahudo's not here to comment any more; he was in that game.

My gut says that we're probably looking at 4 town, 2 full Mafia, 1 Mafia Traitor (5 scum is probably too many),

Under this setup, how would you explain the two-kill base?

In the 14-5 with Traitor scenario, I presume that the second kill is a Vigilante who has been playing vig like Pie recommends (policy-vig N0, kill every night unless vigging incorrectly would lose the game). It's definitely not implausible given the setup's apparent power level so far: town has had 2 dead millers and a bunch of dead townies in a setup that is likely, by the raw numbers, somewhat better for Mafia than usual, and I haven't seen that much power to make up for it (JoaT, double Tracker, Weak Doctor). Vig would help explain that gap and explain the second kill (I have some other thoughts here, but those WILL wait until after massclaim).

This is also more likely given that Xtoxm was killed N1, let alone as Mafia Goon - Xtoxm has such a history of being lynched early that I strongly suspect that he was either policy-vigged or, if we're dealing with 14-4-1, killed by an SK trying to imitate Pie's vig strategy.

That said, after thinking it over again there's not as much distinguishing the "14-5 with Vig playing Pie-style" and "14-4-1 with SK emulating Vig playing Pie-style" as I first thought - both work pretty well given the numbers.

Now, we need to get back to the main business. WE ARE MASSCLAIMING TODAY. PERIOD.

What method do we use for the massclaim? Chosen order? Random order? Popcorn? (I'm leaning towards popcorn with Tom Mason starting first, given my investigation result.)

[Tarhalindur]

I was working on a post earlier, but the stupid forum ate it, so here's the short version:

Point 0: In my analysis of likely game scenarios I missed one plausible scenario earlier (13-3-3, in which case we have 3 town, 1 Mafia, and 3 scum in an unrevealed group). This doesn't change point 1, however - the only thing it would do is put us in a position where town cannot win without help from the scum.

Point 1: We at massclaiming because we are, at best, 1 day from LyLo (requires 14-4-1 and that neither Mafia nor SK has a way to prevent kills), and probably at true LyLo (13-3-3, 14-5, and 14-4-1 with at least one method of preventing NKs all lead to guaranteed town losses if we mislynch today). I'm still not sure on the method, though... random or popcorn are both good choices.

Point 2: After reviewing players using causation analysis, the Cliff Notes version of the PBPA:

- Jazzmyn demands a second post to describe her play more fully. Until I get it up (should be later tonight), suffice it to say that causation analysis does not change my previous conclusions. If anything, it strengthens them.
- Darox (rep. Caboose) is my preferred option for the second Mafioso, especially given my suspicion of Jazzmyn. He's quite slow to choose between Der Hunter and Scheherazade (trying to decide which wagon is more likely to go to completion? This possiblity is more likely than usual given the "where my vote is best placed" rhetoric, which I've seen in the past indicate a tactical - read scum - mindset towards voting), and he was mostly out of the main game threads for the rest of the game (exception is Puta Puta, who he went after quite early). Also note that Darox was the source of the ad hominem argument that featured prominently in early Scheherazade-Jazzmyn exchanges (possible Chainsaw Defense - something to keep in mind if/when Jazzmyn comes up scum).
- ZazieR isn't nearly as scummy as I thought after first reread - she seems to be using causation analysis and generally trying to find scum D1 and early D2 (and she's pretty much flaked sitewide since then). Caveat: Given an offhand comment in one of her posts (D2 or early D3, I'll check), if the setup is 13-3-3 ZazieR is almost certainly scum.
- Vi's not quite as squeaky clean as I first concluded yesterday (his posts on Day 3 in particular don't say much of substance - IIoA, which is usually an indicator that a player wants to stay out of the spotlight), but there is a thread in his posts that makes me strongly doubt that he is scum (especially Mafia scum). I WILL NOT elaborate until a certain condition (not to be named at this time) comes to pass.
- Tom Mason is shaky during Day 2 (his "too scummy to be scum" reaction to Puta Puta could be defense for an obvious partner), but my investigation on him and his behavior Day 3 (I'm seeing a desire to scumhunt behind his Gerrendus case D3) indicate to me that he is town (or Mafia Traitor, though that still doesn't explain his behavior toward Gerrendus D3)
- Huntress is still reading strongly to me as town (misguided, but town nonetheless). Ribwich's behavior D1 and D2 still indicates a scumhunting mindset to me, and Huntress's limited posting so far indicates the same.

[Tarhalindur]

Causation Analysis, Jazzmyn

Jazzmyn still reads scum to me. The key here is to look at her reaction to Scheherazade's case against her D2 (her reaction to my D3 case against her also fits). 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". Let's look at the post in question:

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

Instead of immediately explaining why she found the case invalid, Jazzmyn goes negative to discredit the wagon. I will grant that she goes back and offers reasoning in her second post after Scheherazade's case, but I find that said reasoning/defense isn't nearly as persuasive since she's using it more as an attack on Scheherazade than as a defense of her actions.

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 (like Puta Puta, who ridiculed his attackers by claiming that they all had to be opportunistic scum... and while Puta Puta was an idiot, that contemptuous defense IS often seen from scum.)

Other indications of a scum mindset from Jazzmyn:

- Reaction to the deaths of players Jazzmyn suspected. On its own, Jazzmyn's response to the Jahudo lynch yesterday could be town frustration. However, note her additional defense today for being on the Jahudo wagon. Specifically: why is being on the Jahudo wagon even defense-worthy? Sure, it was a mislynch, but in my experience the town response to a mislynch is to reassess other players rather than defend being on the wagon. Sure, it was a hammer that drew fire, but then I would expect a townie to justify shutting down discussion more than their presence on the wagon. Instead, I'm seeing an attempt to avoid scrutiny for the Jahudo vote (guilty conscience?) and tie EVERYTHING - even setbacks that might spur a rethinking of the situation - into a renewed case on another player. Am I the only person who's thinking that Jazzmyn herself is exhibiting confirmation bias here?

In addition to this, take note of Jazzmyn's reaction when Scheherazade came up town...

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.

Again, Jazzmyn defends herself for being wrong about a player. The defense itself doesn't concern me as much as it would otherwise, since it's in response to another player's comment. What IS pinging my scumdar is the rush to justify her position as being correct even when the outcome was incorrect, both by attempting to paint her opponent's actions as scummy (which they were not) and to claim that he needed to die even if he was town (HOW THE HELL IS THAT A TOWN MINDSET?)

- Jassmyn's justification for outright denial/evasion of cases. Evasion by itself isn't necessarily an indicator of a scum mindset (it could instead be a case of a newb believing that they have answered all points against them), so let's take a look at the rationale Jazzmyn uses:

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

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.

Take a close look at these posts. Jazzmyn doesn't explicitly mention "I've answered all points against me" the first time, and only does so indirectly a second time (betraying another part of her mindset - 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).

Instead, Jazzmyn's primary stated reason for ignoring Scheherazade's case (which had only just fully materialized) is that she finds it tedious. Why? I don't find the "Jazzmyn is town but finds it takes too much time to defend herself" argument particularly persuasive, especially since she was already using Scheherazade's case against her as part of her case against him and had previously proven willing to discuss things in-depth in order to press an attack on Scheherazade; besides, why couldn't she just offer a summarized defense to his new questions? I find it far, far more plausible that Jazzmyn's sudden use of this "too tedious" line of argument was to avoid having to give in-depth defenses of her actions, because those in-depth defenses would likely reveal that the mindset behind her actions was that of a scumbag.

Hell, most of Jazzmyn's defense this game (lack of detailed defense, suddenly ignoring her main attacker just when he began attacking her in-depth, referring attackers to previous posts under the premise that said posts are self-evident) makes sense if Jazzmyn is trying to avoid giving detailed defense on the grounds that it would likely prove her scum.

Look at that italicized sentence again, because it's absolutely damning.

(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. Why the hell would ANY townie do that? It shuts down any opportunity for the suspect to show that he is not scum - by play or by claim. - AND it shuts down the opportunity to gather additional evidence against the suspect. Indeed, it suggests that the player who chooses to ignore their suspect is so certain about their case that mere facts cannot shake their belief... and I don't see how a townie could EVER be that sure that another player is scum.)

- Confirmation bias: 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. Even after they're dead and proven town (see: Scheherazade, Jahudo). (Maybe there's an exception I'm missing, but I didn't see one on my isolation reads.)

- Projection: 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). That's not just hypocritical - given how consistent this has been, I'm seeing evidence of outright projection (where a person or persons "projects", or ascribes, bad attributes of the person or group to another person or group that is seen as an enemy*).

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

* - I've most commonly heard the term used in discussions of fascism, since early fascist groups often showed their own intentions through what they accused their opponents are doing.

The conclusion here is again quite simple: Jazzmyn remains my top suspect under causation analysis, and I will almost certainly vote her after massclaim is done.

I'll get up a response to Jazzmyn's last long post of Day 3 (the hammer post) ASAP.

[Tarhalindur]

BLEEEEEEEEP!

What method do we use for the massclaim? Chosen order? Random order? Popcorn?

'Never done this before, so excuse the question; but what's the difference (okay, I get what the oxymoronic "random order" is) between them and what are the advantages either way?

Random order: No way in which Mafia can screw up the order, but we can't prevent likely power roles from claiming early and there aren't tells from who each claimee chooses.

Popcorn: Exactly the reverse of random order.

Doesn't matter, I missed how soon the deadline is - we don't have time for a massclaim, so we'll have to work without it.

This, in turn, poses a second problem. I am increasingly concerned that we're actually dealing with a 13-3-3 setup, given how little activity I've seen today.

If this is the case, the following are likely:

- Vi is likely scum, probably the last surviving member of the team that originally included Xtoxm and Puta Puta, for the same reasons that I'm sure Vi isn't Mafia if this is single-Mafia after all. Either way, we can't afford to lynch him today.
- Jazzmyn and Huntress are very likely from the unrevealed scumgroup (Huntress's refusal to act becomes significant here, and scumhunting is NOT a town tell in a multiple-faction game, negating the strongest point in Huntress's favor); Darox is probably the third.
- Tom Mason, ZazieR, and myself are likely/certainly town, by process of elimination.

Screw it, either way I'm pretty much certain that Jazzmyn is scum of the sort we can lynch today.

Vote: Jazzmyn
LOCK ON: Jazzmyn

[Tarhalindur]

Hi Rhinox. Congratulations on making me think you were Cop during Mini 716.

@Vi: After reading your analysis of everyone... Are you willing to vote against Jazzmyn?

Yes.
I'll see who else shows up today - it IS short notice - and vote tonight; but unless one of the absent four convinces me to do something else it's going to be Jazzmyn.

@Tarhalindur: My scumdar doth protest too much about calling ZazieR Town

over me

. I'd like to hear about her prod status, but making 60 posts elsewhere over three weeks since her last one here? Implausible.

There's a reason why I think you're very probably scum if the game is 13-3-3, but I will not elaborate at this time. (*Maybe* after massclaim, but I don't think we have enough time for that now.)

Also@Tarhalindur:

@Tarhalindur: I looked through my posts to find what you were talking about with the IIoA, but I didn't see it. What in particular are you talking about?

This is what I was talking about; I completely forgot about the question right below it ;>.>

Oops, let's fix that shall we?

The largest possible IIoA I see in your posts is your conversation with Tom Mason and iamausername on out-of-game subjects early Day 3 (December 2-December 4 in particular) and to a lesser extent Day 1 (while discussing Juls' "community service points". Before I explain further, allow me to ask: What was your reason for going on out-of-game tangent discussions with Tom Mason and iamausername D3.

Also, embarassingly, one potential IIoA comment I was remembering was from another player (iamausername, referring to you... ":D Vi is obvtown. OK, no. But she is awesome."). OOPS.

[Tarhalindur]

Now, looking over what I consider the likely game states:

14 town, 4.5 Mafia

(the 2 Mafia + Traitor scenario): All-but-LyLo, since the only way to pull the town back from the brink after a mislynch is if the Vig kills correctly (a Vig can be assumed due to having a base of two kills per night). We need to lynch Mafia here (preferably full Mafia, but Traitor will do if necessary) and avoid lynching the Vig at all costs.

14 town, 4 Mafia, 1 SK

(2 Mafia + SK scenario): LyLo, with the additional caveat that we would be better served lynching the SK today instead of Mafia (to eliminate the kill), since going into night at 4-1-1 still leaves the possibility of Prisoner's Dilemma tomorrow, or Kingmaker if either the Mafia or the SK has bonus abilities. (Two town kills and no crosskills would lead to 2-1-1; by way of contrast, lynching SK all-but-guarantees 3-2 LyLo tomorrow in this scenario.) Lynching Mafia is inferior here but not a complete disaster.

13 town, 3 Mafia, 3 second scumgroup)

(3-3-1 scenario): Worse than LyLo, since the only way the town can win is if scum crosskill. In order to have any chance at winning in this scenario, we need to lynch from the unrevealed scumgroup today.

The big problem here is that I am almost certain that Jazzmyn is group scum (from the larger group in 13-3-3) and that another player is not (currently?) in a scumgroup and has the ability to kill (Vig, SK, or last of his/her scum). In Scenarios 1 and 3, I want Jazzmyn lynched. In scenario 2, I would prefer a different lynch (since I don't think Jazzmyn is SK).

I'll keep my vote on Jazzmyn for now, but I need a few hours to think this over.

[Tarhalindur]

The largest possible IIoA I see in your posts is your conversation with Tom Mason and iamausername on out-of-game subjects early Day 3 (December 2-December 4 in particular) and to a lesser extent Day 1 (while discussing Juls' "community service points". Before I explain further, allow me to ask: What was your reason for going on out-of-game tangent discussions with Tom Mason and iamausername D3.

The reason for going into off-topic tangent discussions with Tom Mason and iaun was because they said things that did not directly apply to the game, and I *gasp* chose to respond to them. I don't recall a "discussion" of Juls' "community service points", either; it was a somewhat indirect way of saying "I agree with Juls that Scheherazade+Percy needs to stop".

Up until a few hours ago, I would have had no idea what you're getting at - I go off on unrelated tangents as either alignment, because 1) I'm capable of carrying on more than one conversation at once, and 2) I like talking to the random like-minded people I meet on the Internet. However, as I mentioned earlier I just finished a game where a scum player did a very phony attempt at an off-topic conversation (and no, nobody called him on it) and I was wondering if that could have been taken as an indicator. So while I'm still skeptical, I'm willing to hear you out about it.

(Also, Rhinox, how's the puppy?)

IIoA is a very simple yet very general tell (one which I still have trouble defining - the version I use in the Tarhalindur Standard Tells entry is an old version). My current version of IIoA is

"Players who are active but are not using that activity to actively scumhunt are very probably scum"

. You've done what appears to be at least some scumhunting (summary post, asking questions), but you've also had quite a few off-topic posts (particularly early Day 3, where I didn't see any game-related posts until your summary a few days in, and early Day 1 during the setup speculation period), and, for reasons I will not reveal unless I am forced to or until a specific event comes to pass, if you are scum then you are likely in a position where it is in your interests to scumhunt as scum.

I thought IIoA was essentially what you were doing in 700. You're basically saying that to win, we have to look for one of three mutually exclusive roles, all of them loners at this point. I understand the setup logic, but I don't understand where you're going with it - in one scenario, you want to lynch Jazzmyn-scum; in another, you DON'T want to lynch Jazzmyn-scum; and in yet another, you want to lynch Jazzmyn-scum

and everyone else

. (Except ZazieR for some reason.) That broadens the window of people you'd like to vote, I think

Wrong.

1) Setup analysis IS currently relevant to scumhunting (specifically, which kind of scum we should scumhunt in the case that there is more than one scum kill left in the game), because is the point in the game where setup analysis becomes game-relevant because a screwup due to misreading the setup CAN LOSE US THE GAME. The big reason I brought the scenarios up was to see if anyone had information that would indicate that one of these scenarios is more likely (lone Mafioso betting that he has a better shot of winning by claiming today, any role that relies on the presence of an SK, etc.).

2) Another reason why I brought up setup analysis is because my lynch choice is very different if we're dealing with an SK than if we are not.

3) I'm reluctant to reveal my reasoning beyond this because I'm hoping that the Mafia(s) haven't caught on to what I've figured out yet. If people really want me to reveal, I will, but I'd rather not do something that might backfire badly unless I need to. (There's also a specific event that could occur that would remove my objections to revealing further.)

[Tarhalindur]

The only people who have a reason to avoid a mass claim are those who have something to hide.

Doesn't matter, I missed how soon the deadline is - we don't have time for a massclaim, so we'll have to work without it.

(*Maybe* after massclaim, but I don't think we have enough time for that now.)

I cannot speak for Tar, but look at the way others were trying to avoid a claim. He proposed the idea initially, I believe. So, obviously he favored the mass-claim. But when there are people like Jazz, Huntress, and more avoiding the idea or downplaying the need for it -- how can Tar really continue to push it?

The deadline was about to hit, too, when he said that (unless I am mistaken). And then it was asked for an extension.

The reasons why I stopped supporting a massclaim were, in decreasing order of importance: 1) because deadline was approaching and getting a correct lynch today is more important than a massclaim; 2) With so little time before deadline we might not have time to get all the claims*; 3) with so little time after a massclaim there might not be time for analysis.

* - this applied up until the point that OGML announced that deadline would be on the 27th. Using OGML's original extension (replacement + 3 days), deadline would have fallen on the 25th (or 26th, depending on OGML's terminology), which is after a weekend where players were likely to be less active (hence reduced chances of getting everyone to massclaim).

I still support a massclaim in theory, and if we can get one done I would prefer to do so. I'm just not sure if a massclaim is *possible* at this point.

[Tarhalindur]

My current version of IIoA is

"Players who are active but are not using that activity to actively scumhunt are very probably scum"

.

I call that "active lurking" but yes, I agree with you here.

You've done what appears to be at least some scumhunting (summary post, asking questions), but you've also had quite a few off-topic posts (particularly early Day 3, where I didn't see any game-related posts until your summary a few days in, and early Day 1 during the setup speculation period),

That summary a few days in... I hope you're not talking about 504. That was a few days in, but I hadn't posted before then D3.
After that, sure, I went on tangents. Then again, while doing so I made sure I responded to everything on-topic.
The "early Day 1 during the setup speculation period" was a single post criticizing the reasoning behind a random vote made against me, something that I'm not seeing as anti-Town (because lol rvstage). On top of that, it was sandwiched between two Vi-posts that are helpful by your definition.

Good enough.

Now let me ask this. You keep making conditional statements about me - IF this is is the setup THEN I'm scum, and IF I'm scum THEN I've good reason to scumhunt. But I still think your charges are bogus. I'll probably regret asking, but just how scummy

am

I to you, anyway?

By play? Not very. By setup analysis? I'm not sure yet...

2) Another reason why I brought up setup analysis is because my lynch choice is very different if we're dealing with an SK than if we are not.

And how do you plan to learn whether this is the case?

By seeing how many more players claim power roles (or by having a player claim a role like Psychiatrist that generally goes with an SK), since SK tends to balance out as town-to-null in most mods' balancing and Traitor implies extra power.

After looking it over, if there's no clear reason to say that there's an SK in the game (severe lack of remaining power roles, a role that implies SK, etc.), I still would prefer to lynch Mafia (Jazzmyn). We may be able to recover from a 2-1-1 endgame (Prisoner's Dilemma can end in a town win), we can't recover from 2 Mafia + Traitor.

I still support a massclaim in theory, and if we can get one done I would prefer to do so. I'm just not sure if a massclaim is *possible* at this point.

Another theory question, but how bad would it be to throw organization to the wind and say ALL PEOPLE CLAIM IN YOUR NEXT POST AFTER THIS?

Biggest problem there is that all of my Mafia suspects are lurkers and I wanted to force them to claim early (and try to get the person who's going to claim Vig* to claim last, but that probably wouldn't happen even under popcorn).

Well, that and I don't know how much force "claim or die!" will have right now...

... and I didn't even think of that option before now (oops!)...

... okay, mainly "I didn't even think of that option before now". I feel stupid now.

* - I'm 90% certain I know who this player is (I've been pretty damn sure since Day 3). This may or may not explain some of my seemingly erratic behavior recently.

[Tarhalindur]

Okay, I've had a chance to sleep on it.

ALL PLAYERS - CLAIM IN YOUR NEXT POST OR DIE (IF ANYTHING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT*).

* - yes, Yodaspeak.

[Tarhalindur]

I do not have time to respond to Jazzmyn's defense in full at this time. I will note now that it is the most reasonable defense I have seen from Jazzmyn all game - I could see that defense coming from a pro-town Jazzmyn.

Unvote

pending answers to some questions.

Jazzmyn: Would you disagree with me when I say that it is possible for two different pro-town players to arrive at different, equally valid interpretations of the same words? In addition, if a player argues that another player is scum due to an interpretation of the second player's posts that is different from the interpretation intended by the second player, must this necessarily be misrepresentation or can this be a simple misunderstanding?

Now, some other matters to attend to:

Quick post to say I'm a Vanilla Townie (a Vi-Town, if you will).

Huntress is correct that Vanilla Townie is an all-around awesome role to have. After being a Doctor in so many games, I can say with confidence that Vanilla is a step up.

Will read over the rest of what's been said when I wake up.

I have rather large issues with this claim. Remember when I said I had a player I was 90% sure was going to claim Vig? That player was Vi. Observe the following posts...

But what is to stop Tar-scum taking advantage of the fact that there was a third kill N2 by claiming a kill that he made was actually a vig-kill?

I think that this concern can be settled tomorrow under certain conditions. (Not that I want to say what they are aloud until then.)

We need more Huntress (from 643) and ZazieR (from 635) ITT. Tarhalindur too, although he's fresh out of access - I'm interested in his choice of night action.

Vi, explain these posts, and the former comment in particular. NOW.

Mod: Please prod Rhinox

[Tarhalindur]

Mod: Please prod Rhinox

/in before prod

No need. I had a RL issue pop up unexpectedly that prevented me from finishing my read of the thread. I have about 8 pages left to go. I have been reading the current discussion as well... I wanted to finish reading the thread before claiming to see why mass claiming right now is so important.

No, you're going to claim, NOW. If you don't, you need to die. Understood?

I am a vanilla townie.

@ Tarhalindur: Did your role PM say anything about the sanity of your cop investigation?

My role PM does not make any explicit mention of my sanity (it just lists what they are). That said, I see no reason to doubt my sanity despite the lack of mod confirmation - I've NEVER seen a non-Sane JoaT in any game, let alone a normal, and if such a role existed I would expect the sanity issues to extend to all abilities instead of just the investigation (for much the same reason that random cop is frowned upon - a JoaT with an ineffective investigation and reliable other abilities has no way of learning that his investigation may be unreliable, unlike a Naive or Insane Cop who can get more than one chance to investigate.)

Response to Jazzmyn still coming, assuming I have time before deadline.

Note (I'll be putting up as much as I can before deadline here): So far, we have the following revealed roles and the following claims:

- Tracker x2 (farside22, iamausername)
- Weak Doctor x1 (curiouskarmadog)
- Jack of All Trades x1 (investigate, protect, kill, roleblock*) (Tarhalindur)
- 2x Grave Digger (either Miller-equivalent or Janitor**) (strife22, Percy Mk. I)
- 10x Vanilla Townie (DerHammer, Percy Mk. II, Scheherazade, armlx, Jahudo, Jazzmyn, Huntress, Tom Mason, Vi, Darox)
1x unclaimed (Rhinox)

* - for those of you who need/want a refresher, my predecessor used no action N0, investigated Tom Mason (innocent) N1, and vigged Scheherazade N2; I used my doc protect on myself last night (my protect could self-target) and still have my roleblock.
** - I've seen Grave Digger used in the past to refer to a role that can remove dead bodies from graveyards at night; that said, since OGML coined the use of the term to refer to a tracker-miller, I think that these players were of the tracker-miller variant.

There is a base of two kills in the setup, one of which is presumably the Mafia kill and one of which is unaccounted for pending the last claim.

The immediately obvious conclusion to me, considering the lack of power roles and probable presence of 2(!) Millers, is that this setup is almost certainly NOT 14-5, as that setup is somewhat balanced against the town unless balanced by significant power roles. The setup might actually be 15-4 if Rhinox is Vig, given the lack of power (weak power roles + Millers + a scum power role or two might balance the numerical advantage town has in that scenario), but I have my doubts and we shouldn't focus on that scenario at any rate (if the setup is 15-4 we are NOT at LyLo and have room for another mislynch; 14-4-1 only has a little wiggle room after a mislynch (none if a scum has NK immunity or a RB) and 13-3-3 has none (in fact, in 13-3-3 we need help just to have a chance to win)).

More later - hopefully Rhinox claims in the very near future.

[Tarhalindur]

Okay, so there's the Vig claim (not the player I was expecting it from, though...). I'm reserving final judgment for a few more hours, but leaning towards Rhinox telling the truth.

Big question I need to ask (to players not named Rhinox...): How likely is it that ZazieR was lying about her vig theory when she posted this Day 1?

Juls, you forget that it's way unlikely that the goon was killed by a pro-town powerrole. The only one who could do so is a vig, and if a vig killed the goon then he's stupid as the chance of hitting town was way higher than hitting town.
Also, it would be strange if we would have two docs. I at least never have seen two docs in one game.

Which probably leaves a second scum group and/or a SK.
Although it's better to scumhunt, it could also be good to know which enemies we have.

Strife, what could scum gain from the answers of the question that Scheza asked?

Right now, I think that this was a lie for the purposes of keeping undercover, but I want to be sure. I'll nose around in what time I have left before deadlie, but input from someone with better meta on ZazieR would be appreciated.

However, all the setup speculating Tar has done makes me nervous. The only Meta I have on Tar, he replaced in, did some setup speculating, made a fake claim I wouldn't have expected scum to make, and was indeed scum. The only way Tar can be mafia, however, is if he convinced his team not to kill last night to "prove" his one shot doc role. I'm doubting that, although I have a thing for conspiracies, and I'm still thinking Tar is town like he says.

Just some evidence that setup speculation is a null tell for me. (I'm not being anywhere near as suicidal in this game as I was in the linked Mafia 75, but that's mainly because I'm not vanilla and haven't yet figured out a way to guarantee a win.)

Note: My big specialty is breaking setups in half, regardless of alignment.

What was bothering me at the beginning of the post is that mafia targetting Tar last night doesn't make any sense. Killing Tar would have basically confirmed Tom as town. But the scum knew tar had a doc ability and could self protect, so did tar just out wifom the mafia, or is Tar the mafia...

Actually, I can think of one way where "Mafia kills Tar and fails" makes sense: if I got an incorrect result on Tom Mason, and the Mafia attempted to kill me in order to "confirm" Tom Mason through my death. The big problems here are a) this requires a Godfather immune to my investigation (not impossible, but unlikely given how little power the town seems to have) and b) if this is the case the Mafia gambled that I wouldn't use my shield on myself last night.

(If this is the case, then the scum are probably Tom Mason and Vi.)

Vote coming once I decide whether Vi or Darox (not Jazzmyn at this point... after the tone of her last defense, I can no longer rule out the possibility that Jazzmyn is misguided town) is more likely to be scum. Case and response to Jazzmyn coming ASAP.

[Tarhalindur]

I may not have time to post again before deadline, so I'm putting down my vote now.

After looking things over, I believe that Darox is likely scum (Caboose was near the top of my scum list earlier, and a combination of a lack of actual analysis from Darox until very recently and Darox's attack relying on Rhinox being SK* only reinforce this in my mind) - not as sure as I'd like to be, but since this may be my last chance to vote today I'll take what I can get.

* - which a) I doubt and I can take care of at any rate and b) looks like Selective Scumhunting to me, especially since Darox didn't offer any reasoning as to why we should lynch SK over Mafia today, especially since I can just block Rhinox tonight if needed.

Unvote, Vote: Darox

[Tarhalindur]

Oh FUUUUUUUCK, hope I'm not too late, I only just got back from class. I should have caught this when I voted last night, but apparently I was too tired to catch it...

Rhinox, lemme ask this - If Darox is lynched today, who will you vig? Remember that if there are two Mafia, a misvig means they win.

Note this post carefully. Vi doesn't say "if Darox comes up town", he says "if Darox is lynched today".

Unless I'm seriously mistaken, Vi just told us that he KNOWS Darox will come up town. There's only one reason he could know that.

Unvote, Vote: Vi
LOCK ON: Vi

[Tarhalindur]

EBWOP: FUUUUUCK, he's already hammered.

Rhinox, if Darox comes up town, vig the hell out of Vi tonight.

[Tarhalindur]

Before I reveal who I roleblocked... Rhinox, that was your kill, right?

[Tarhalindur]

Yeah Tar. I thought really hard about killing V*i, but in the end I decided against it and after analyzing both huntress and jazz, I decided to go with huntress. Jazz seemed more like townie to me, despite the questionable hammer.

Good job with the block. I'm guessing you saved my life. I'll be really interested hearing who you blocked. As long as your trusting me right now, I think we have a good shot at getting scum.

There's some irony there... keep reading for details.

Okay, time for my reveal. I took a fairly large risk last night, and it would seem that my gamble paid off handsomely.

The safe play last night would have been to roleblock Rhinox, for two reasons: it ensures that we have two lynches to find the last scum in a 15-4 game, and it would play around the one situation I could see where town would effectively lose at the beginning of today* (namely, the possibility Rhinox is an SK with kill immunity). I decided against this play for the following reasons:

1) If Rhinox was UNK SK, then the Mafia would probably waste their kill in an attempt to kill him. (The only really good reasons I could think of why this wouldn't happen would be 1) if I have a bad result on Tom Mason and he tried to kill me to false-confirm himself or 2) if the missing kill N3 was a Mafia kill targeted at Rhinox.)
2) There was a fairly good chance that I would be able to block the Mafia kill - I've doubted Huntress as scum for some time, and I have an innocent on Tom Mason, so the two likely suspects were Jazzmyn and Vi.

Considering that there was only one kill last night, my gamble paid off.

So, the upshot: I blocked Jazzmyn last night, on the grounds that Vi's play late D4 and Jazzmyn's play earlier made her the most likely surviving partner of Darox. (I am now effectively vanilla.)

I'm pretty sure this means that Jazzmyn is scum, but I can't be sure. I doubt that Rhinox is SK, but I cannot definitively rule it out. It's also possible that the Mafia killed Huntress as well last night - I cannot rule it out unless we can get mod confirmation that doublekills would be indicated as such in the night scene - but I can't see why Mafia would go after a vanilla instead of one of the power roles.

I see two good plans here:

1) Lynch Rhinox today and lynch Jazzmyn tomorrow - this removes the risk of losing if Rhinox is kill-immune SK, but we'd (or, more likely, you'd) MUST get the lynch right tomorrow. This plan is probably somewhat safer, but doesn't give us room for error tomorrow (if my block didn't cause the missing kill last night, we lose).
2) Lynch Jazzmyn today, lynch ??? (??? = Rhinox if Jazzmyn is scum) tomorrow if necessary - this carries a somewhat larger risk of becoming a town loss (if my block didn't cause the kill last night and Rhinox is SK, then we have to hope that Rhinox accidentally crosskills). If we do this and Rhinox is Vig, Rhinox CANNOT fire tonight. Period. Losing the game due to an Azwolging vig is not my cup of tea.

Note that if Jazzmyn is scum, we should win with either of these plans. The decisions here are as follows: what minimizes our chances of losing if somehow Jazzmyn isn't scum, and does this even matter to us?

I'm pretty sure the second plan is the better one from what I've thought over so far (since there's still a chance we win even if I somehow didn't stop the Mafia kill last night... if Rhinox is SK, he may kill the last Mafioso by accident; if Rhinox is town, we get a second crack at the Mafioso), but I want to hear others' input before I decide.

* if Rhinox was UNK SK and today started with 2 townies, 1 Mafia, and Rhinox, we would have an extremely low chance of winning the game (we would have to No Lynch and hope the SK miskilled the Mafioso tonight, otherwise Day 6 would be a Kingmaker situation).

[Tarhalindur]

EBWOP: "I'm pretty sure this means that Jazzmyn is scum, but I can't be sure." -> "I'm pretty sure this means that Jazzmyn is scum, but I can't be 100% sure."

[Tarhalindur]

Wait, forgot to post this earlier.

Mod: If a dead player was targeted by more than one kill, would that be revealed in the death scene?

[Tarhalindur]

I want to wait to hear from Jazz and Vi before saying too much.

But what I do want to say is... Has anybody considered the possibility that the game started with a 5 player scum team, that I am actually a vig, and that its 3-2 lylo right now? Given that 3 scum have been plain ol goons, and we're pretty sure there's no scum RB, I think that seems possible, although I'm not a mod and this is my first large game, so I don't know whats considered balanced in large games. But haven't there been 4 player scum teams in minis? I only ask because everyone's been assuming that there is either 1 mafian remaining, or 1 mafia 1 sk... 2 mafian may still be possible.

1) Lynch Rhinox today and lynch Jazzmyn tomorrow - this removes the risk of losing if Rhinox is kill-immune SK, but we'd (or, more likely, you'd) MUST get the lynch right tomorrow. This plan is probably somewhat safer, but doesn't give us room for error tomorrow (if my block didn't cause the missing kill last night, we lose).

^If I'm a vig, and there are 2 mafians remaining, lynching me today = lose as well.

2) Lynch Jazzmyn today, lynch ???

(??? = Rhinox if Jazzmyn is scum)

tomorrow if necessary - this carries a somewhat larger risk of becoming a town loss (if my block didn't cause the kill last night and Rhinox is SK, then we have to hope that Rhinox accidentally crosskills). If we do this and Rhinox is Vig, Rhinox CANNOT fire tonight. Period. Losing the game due to an Azwolging vig is not my cup of tea.

^unless there are currently 2 scum remaining... If I'm going to be lynched if jazz is scum and its not game over, then basically its all on my shoulders to save the town by vigging the final scum tonight 50/50 between Vi and Tom, before I'm lynched tomorrow as a suspected sk. Getting it wrong would blow the game, but so would letting myself be lynched tomorrow.

Two surviving scum is theoretically possible but unlikely, IMO. It's also not particularly threatening, since if the Mafia consisted of 5 Mafia Goons then we are already 99% certain that we know who they are. You cannot be Mafia Goon due to uncounterclaimed kill, I cannot be Mafia Goon due to uncounterclaimed kill, Tom Mason cannot be Mafia Goon unless my investigation is somehow faulty, which I consider unlikely. That leaves us to find two Mafia Goons in the set of unconfirmed players (Vi, Jazzmyn)... which is trivial considering that the number of unconfirmed players in a 5-Mafia situation is EXACTLY EQUAL to the number of scum we are looking for.

Ergo, if the Mafia consisted of 5 Mafia Goons, then the remaining scum MUST be Vi and Jazzmyn. (This would also mean that Vi has been distancing from Jazzmyn since Day 3.) This sets up a pretty good shot at an autowin: Lynch Jazzmyn today, Rhinox kills Vi tonight. If the game is not over tomorrow, lynch Rhinox.

The only scenario in which this loses the game is if Tom Mason is Mafia, in which case there are either two kills overnight (read: Rhinox is Vig or SK without kill immunity) and town loses at daybreak or there is one kill overnight (read: Rhinox is UNK SK and Tom Mason tries to kill him) and the last surviving townie (me) has to choose the winner tomorrow.

I'm pretty sure those are odds I'm willing to take.

Vote: Jazzmyn

[Tarhalindur]

Wait, I missed a second way the above scenario loses the game for town (specifically, if Vi is Mafia and Rhinox is UNK SK).

I still think the above plan (lynch Jazzmyn, Rhinox vigs Vi if day continues, lynch Rhinox tomorrow if the game has not ended) is the optimal play, but I *might* just have not thought of a better plan.

[Tarhalindur]

EBWOP: lynch Jazzmyn, Rhinox kills Vi if game continues (or else*), lynch Rhinox tomorrow if game has not ended.

If Rhinox does NOT kill Vi and we don't lose overnight, we lynch Rhinox tomorrow, period.

[Tarhalindur]

I wasn't gambiting - I blocked Jazzmyn last night.

[Tarhalindur]

Unvote

- I need a little time to think this over. I should post again tomorrow.

[Tarhalindur]

After running the math overnight...

The only way Town can lose today if we lynch Vi is if Jazzmyn is Mafia Roleblocker (not Tom Mason, Roleblocker Godfather is too damn overpowered for me to accept) and Rhinox is an SK without kill immunity. In this scenario, Jazzmyn blocks Rhinox and kills a townie, then town either lynches Jazzmyn tomorrow (handing the game to the SK) or gives the game to the Mafia overnight.

All other scenarios I can see that would lead to town loss are all-but-impossible because they require that the game is so overpowered in Mafia's favor that it's not even funny. 14-5 with two Mafia power roles and 2 Millers is so damn imbalanced in the Mafia's favor that I cannot believe that OGML would run such a setup.

The other likely less-than-win outcome is Happily Ever After*. This occurs if Jazzmyn is Mafia Roleblocker (Tom Mason is ruled out because a Roleblocker Godfather is just too damn overpowered for me to accept) and Rhinox is UNK SK. Optimal play here is for the townie to vote no-lynch each day (as long as the townie votes No Lynch, no lynch can be achieved) and for Jazzmyn for block the SK and kill the SK (or no-kill) each night. As such, no resolution can be achieved and the game ends Happily Ever After.

* - Caveat: This depends on how OGML handles Happily Ever After. If it is treated as a loss for all factions, a win for a specific faction, or the game just continues until someone wins, the townie might decide to hand a faction the victory. I've sent a PM to OGML to double-check, but I'll ask the question here as well so the answer is public.

Note to Rhinox: Any case in which you would call me Mafia is shot down by the fact that Roleblocker with a bonus kill is exceedingly unlikely in a Normal game. If Vi isn't scum, Jazzmyn almost certainly is..

Vote: Vi
LOCK ON: Vi

Mod: How do you treat a Happily Ever After endgame?

[Tarhalindur]

Hmm, how very interesting. I could have claimed my actual role today.

You're right that I'm scum, Vi, but you're wrong about the type.

I'm an SK (kill-immune variant, hence the lack of Mafia kill). Kills are as follows: DoomCow killed CKD N0, Percy N1, and Scheherazade N2. I no-killed N3 and tried to kill Rhinox last night.

That last kill, obviously, failed. I didn't push for Rhinox's lynch today because I couldn't rule him out as UNK Godfather (or Roleblocker) and I've been trying to engineer a Kingmaker situation for the last few days.

I'm killing Jazzmyn tonight. Tom Mason, I believe you get to decide which SK wins tomorrow.

Savvy?

[Tarhalindur]

A few notes:

A) Since I didn't elaborate enough earlier: "rule him out as UNK Godfather (or Roleblocker" -> I couldn't rule Rhinox out as UNK Godfather (damn unlikely, required a doublekilling Mafia Godfather or another SK) or, more importantly, I couldn't rule out Rhinox or ESPECIALLY Tom Mason as Mafia Roleblocker. (I had Tom Mason read as Mafia Roleblocker for quite a bit of Day 5, since him killing me and failing made sense in that scenario.) I judged that a N4 with Tarhalindur-SK, Tom Mason-Mafia Roleblocker, Rhinox-Vig, and Jazzmyn-Vanilla was fairly favorable, and even after his modified claim (which all-but-proved he was SK to me) there was a good reason to stay away from him: I lose endgame ties with Mafia and win all other endgame ties (presumably including double-SK endgames). I assume Rhinox has a note in his win condition to the opposite effect. (Given the way he assumed two Mafia today, he could either have believed in 2 Mafia - kill one would set up Kingmaker for him - or thought he could push through a Tom Mason lynch FTW tomorrow.)

As an aside, a minor motivation for my push for massclaim D3 was that I expected a second town protective role - Doc or bulletproof. (I would have asked even as town, since massclaim at LyLo is correct play.)

B) Tomorrow is very simple. Rhinox should no-kill tonight (or kill Jazzmyn or me, which amounts to the same). Tomorrow, either Tom Mason votes to lynch me (handing Rhinox the game) or casts any other vote (handing me the game).

C) Jazzmyn, you are UTTERLY mistaken in one regard - my case against you was sincere (I thought you were Mafia trying to push home a mislynch... er, non-Mafia lynch - until the middle of Day 4). In fact, note that I play SK as town until very late game (one reason that I was pissed at DoomCow - my best guess is that he plays SK as Survivor/Scum, when I consider such play amazingly suboptimal). The case against DoomCow was, however, good... except for the fact that the tell you used isn't a Mafia tell per se. It's a Survivor tell (and therefore a weak Mafia tell).

[Tarhalindur]

OK.. I've been stalking this thread like mad hoping to be the first 1 here when it opened.

I tried to kill Tar... obv, I failed.

Tom, you have to lynch Tar. He admitted to being scum, he's lied.

What I have I done since I replaced in? I've nailed 2 scum, and been 100% honest (well, there was my gambit, but it worked!). I swear on all that is holy that I am a vig.

Options:

No lynch: Tar will win. I can't kill him. He can kill me because I am a vig.
Lynch Tom: same result.
Lynch Me: Guarenteed Town loss, because Tar admitted to being scum.
Lynch Tar: Town wins.

The only chance you have is to lynch tar and cross your fingers that I'm still being 100% honest and I am a vig. I am. I know I am. Even if you don't believe me, who would you rather hand the game to if we're both SKs? Tar who's lied, or me who's been honest and completely pwned the scum since replacing in?

I swear I'm a vig. Its all I can do to try to convince you without quoting my role PM. Its also your only chance, because I can't kill Tar, and I know he can kill me.

You have to vote him. Please believe me.

VOTE: TAR FTW

CONFIRMED AND LOCKED ON! IT'S THE ONLY WAY, TOM

1) I'd act surprised that you have the gall to claim that you're completely honest (which is a complete and utter LIE, considering that I'm damn sure you killed Huntress N5) if not for the fact that I was pretty sure you would try this tack today (my reckoning says that the line of reasoning increases your chances of winning significantly just by existing).
2) Today is quite simple. I explained how this works yesterday. I've known this endstate was coming ever since Vi fucked me over by putting me in the situation I was trying to put Rhinox in.

Vote: No Lynch

[Tarhalindur]

EBWOP: Remember, I win all endgame ties except ties with the Mafia, so I don't particularly care how today ends as long as it doesn't involve my lynch.

[Tarhalindur]

Oh, yes, for Tom Mason - your actual options:

No lynch: I kill you and win the endgame tie.
Lynch Tom: I win instantly, because I win the endgame tie.
Lynch Me: I win instantly, because I win the endgame tie.
Lynch Tar: Rhinox wins.

Your choice.

[Tarhalindur]

EBWOP: #3 should be "Lynch Rhinox: I win". Oops. Sorry about that.

[Tarhalindur]

and if we're both SK, why does tar win endgame tie and I lose an endgame tie? doesn't make sense?

thats because I'm vig...

A) Since I didn't elaborate enough earlier: "rule him out as UNK Godfather (or Roleblocker" -> I couldn't rule Rhinox out as UNK Godfather (damn unlikely, required a doublekilling Mafia Godfather or another SK) or, more importantly, I couldn't rule out Rhinox or ESPECIALLY Tom Mason as Mafia Roleblocker. (I had Tom Mason read as Mafia Roleblocker for quite a bit of Day 5, since him killing me and failing made sense in that scenario.) I judged that a N4 with Tarhalindur-SK, Tom Mason-Mafia Roleblocker, Rhinox-Vig, and Jazzmyn-Vanilla was fairly favorable, and even after his modified claim (which all-but-proved he was SK to me) there was a good reason to stay away from him:

I lose endgame ties with Mafia and win all other endgame ties

(presumably including double-SK endgames). I assume Rhinox has a note in his win condition to the opposite effect. (Given the way he assumed two Mafia today, he could either have believed in 2 Mafia - kill one would set up Kingmaker for him - or thought he could push through a Tom Mason lynch FTW tomorrow.)

Please note that I was explicitly informed of this tiebreaking rule in my role PM.

There's no way in hell I have that in my role PM unless there's a non-Mafia role that I could tie with (either town bulletproof, a second Doc-type role, or another UNK SK).

Since there's no sign of a bulletproof or a second town Doc, that role is Rhinox, the other SK.

[Tarhalindur]

It makes sense. (Rhinox being Town, not the setup.)

Hey Tarhalindur. You complained to me about effing up your standing, but realize:
1) I would have been where you were today. Exactly where you were. And I would have lost the same way.
2) The fact that you

claimed SK in twilight

probably didn't help your chances.

----

The tl;dr version of my commentary on this game is that it just confirms what I've always said - replacements are scum's worst enemy. Town had no chance - or less than no chance, if possible - before Rhinox and Tarhalindur showed up.

You're all great people - well, okay, nearly all of you *glares at DH and Gimbo* - and I enjoyed playing with everyone D1. It's a shame Scheherazade and al4xz seem to have left.

Vi, my complaint is that you revealed that one of the missing Mafia kills was targeted at me. If not for that, I could probably have pushed through the Rhinox kill FTW (since you made it clear I could not be town).