DP12 JeepFest Mafia GAME OVER

[Vesuvan]

Semi-random

Vote: Axelrod

. From looking over games I've been in lately, the first person to speculate on the number and nature of killing groups is more often than not a killer themselves.

[Vesuvan]

Semi-random

Vote: Axelrod

. From looking over games I've been in lately, the first person to speculate on the number and nature of killing groups is more often than not a killer themselves.

Such as, oh I don't know, Mini 175 (the only other game we have ever been in together) where I was most definately town.

Hey, come to think of it, you voted for me first in that game too. What the hell!

Yep, and I had the same reasoning there. It's not a 100% tell by any means, but it helps with finding where my first vote goes.

I just prefer actually talking about stuff. Look at any game I have ever been in. The random voting that starts off every game around here annoys me. Unfortunately that tends to make me a target. I've been killed the first night after a day in every game I've played on this site (excepting the one game where I actually was a mafia.) But I accept that. I'd still rather speculate. It's much more interesting.

As you have seen me play in more games than most people here from reading the games I've played in on other sites, you should know that I am quite strongly against early-game speculation on the setup except when I'm scum and have a good way of manipulating the town by doing so.

Speculation regarding setup can't really be done all that effectively until day 2 at the earliest anyway since there is only a single event (night) to draw conclusions from and the only people with any information beyond their own role are mafia (who want to mislead the town) and townies with power-roles (who should not reveal themselves early in the game).

[Vesuvan]

Well I obviously disagree. Early speculation

can

be effective. More to the point, I do it all the time, and by all the time, I mean every game I have ever been in--with some small success I might add. So for you to suggest that it means I am more likely to be a mafia is flatly untrue.

Even more to the point, you appear to realize this (or possibly you only realize it now?), but you are still trying to argue the point. Or are you just making a general game-theory-meta-game type argument that has nothing to do with me?

Look, it has nothing to do with you personally, and it's something that I consider only for making my first (i.e. usually at least semi-random) vote of the day. Usually it doesn't get this sort of attention to it, as it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

The only reason I "argued" the point at all was because you brought up a past game - and as we noticed then, you were town in that game so as I said, it really isn't much of an indicator. I just like to discourage it when there is no pattern to go on (i.e. it's usually not very useful until night 2 or 3 at the earliest)

sorry i haven't posted in a few days... my mom was in the hospital, but she's ok now...
anywho, i don't understand why this whole bandwagon formed because someone posted right after it was made apparent that they hadn't said anything. suspicious as it is- i don't understand why vesuvian hasn't said anything since.

The reason I haven't posted anything since is that I haven't been on the internet since. I'm catching up on the thread now. There have been some rather extreme circumstances keeping me from getting online, as it is certainly not usual for me to be offline for this long at a stretch.

For people calling for me to claim (Stoofer, LML), I don't generally believe in claiming unless there is some real reason to do so - it's not necessarily something I believe a townie should do when under a bandwagon if there is no reason behind the bandwagon.

As I understand it, the only reason for suspicion on me is a (labelled as semi-random) vote for Axelrod for what I admitted outright was a very weak scum tell, for posting shortly after someone noted that I hadn't posted for a while, and for not posting for a while? Unless the people calling for me to claim have any better reasons than this (and if so, then I'll quite happily claim), I don't see any reason to do so.

I'm able to check up on the thread regularly again, so supposed lurking can be looked at from this point on rather than by a bandwagon-forced claim. I have explained my position regarding my vote on Axelrod (which I'm leaving there until I see a stronger reason to vote for someone). Unless there is something else, I see no need to claim, which I believe is not something that benefits the town under these circumstances

[Vesuvan]

I still think that popping up right after being called out for lurking AND having participated on the site otherwise while the thread has been open is scummiest tell at this point.

Not noticing a thread is open when the other threads I've posted in are in a different forum is a scum tell now?

Though if by this you're saying that we have no "reliable" tells at the moment, then fair enough.

[Vesuvan]

Regarding Vesuvan, he was one of the lurkers for the past couple days. Suddenly he's back and is one vote from the lynch and he starts off his post discussing the use of speculating on day 1 with Axelrod?

This is something common to my playing style. When I am catching up on a thread after a period of time being away (most often over a weekend), I reply to any still-relevant questions directed toward me.

He says the bandwagon has no point so he refuses to claim. Well what if some nut didn't like that and voted you anyway and we lost a powerful role? Would that be a good time to claim? Oh wait, it's a bit late by then.

Again, that's part of my playing style. If I don't see a reason to claim, I state why and ask for a reason why I should do so from those calling for my claim. If someone puts the lethal vote on, then they are running a very big risk of being lynched in turn the following day and there is a very good chance of them being scum.

Of course, if I do see a "real reason" for the bandwagon, then I'll claim in that sort of situation.

[Vesuvan]

Okay, taking some more time to read back over the wagon on me, I'm finding myself also agreeing a lot with SilentSpeaker's assessment in post 82. Saberkitty, the action of voting for me really didn't fit with the text surrounding it, which by itself would be more of an explanation for placing a FOS and stating a willingness to place a vote - not to place a vote yourself. The pressure on someone you feel is lurking is something that I agree with and approve of, but putting them on the verge of a lynch is not.

You have complained that people voting for you aren't explaining their reasoning, and I assume that this is to do with wanting to be able to answer the reasons they have for voting for you. Given the explanation I've given, which is very similar to reasons already stated prior to your last post.

Since this behavior is raising more red flags for me,

Unvote, Vote: Saberkitty

[Vesuvan]

Not noticing a thread is open when the other threads I've posted in are in a different forum is a scum tell now?

Either you were lurking on purpose (scummy) or not paying attention to this game (poor play).

Or logging onto the site quickly to post in two games that I was actively participating in and was able to reply to quickly, and not checking other forums since I didn't have time to.

Really, the point you're bringing up isn't much of a point at all.

If someone puts the lethal vote on, then they are running a very big risk of being lynched in turn the following day and there is a very good chance of them being scum.

In my opinion this is a threat, with a purpose to keep yourself from claiming. Vesuvan, do you think your role is the sole one winning the game for the town? So precious a role, that when out on open, the game is lost for the town?[/quote]

It's not a threat; it's a statement of how I would expect players react when someone puts a lethal vote onto someone who has just explained themselves. That's a large part of why I am generally unwilling to claim without a good reason to do so.

As to how important my role is, that should have no relevance whatsoever on my decision. If I'm a vanilla townie, then I'm better off unclaimed in that situation to keep our power roles hidden from the scum, who I don't doubt were on that bandwagon to either get a quick lynch or fish for information.

I'm really torn between SaberKat and Vesuvan, when it comes to voting. I still feel Vesuvan is scummy, but SaberKat just passed him.

I'm ready to put that lethal vote on Vesuvan though

.

wtf? You're ready to lynch someone for refusing to claim with no real reason? Added to the BS "logic" I've quoted above...

Unvote: Saberkity
Vote: Olio

[Vesuvan]

*looks at above post*

Hmm... not sure how that happenned, but that second quoted section is Olio, not me.

[Vesuvan]

If you're lynched, Vesuvan, your role is gone anyway. And we

have

to lynch somebody. If we don't lynch, we can't win.

Yes, I realise that, and that's why I only don't claim if there is no cause to do so. The reasons behind the wagon on me were very weak so I asked the people calling for me to claim if they had a good reason for me to do so.

Don't get me wrong - if there is good reason for suspicion on a player, I feel that the player in question should claim. However I don't think they should claim under a poorly reasoned bandwagon.

[Vesuvan]

How much reason do day 1 bandwagons usually have?

Usually not all that much, but usually more than the wagon on me did.

And for another thing, the town could lose an important role, for all we know ,because someone rushed the lynch vote without waiting for a claim OR because the victim decided he didn't care. Sure it worked out better so far, but when 9 people are voting for you, it's a bit late to worry about their reasons.

This is probably something to discuss elsewhere, but except for one occasion where I've tried a similar thing when scum and the wagon against me did have a lot of good reasons I haven't had that happen. It's the way I've played this game for some time now, and I haven't had anyone who is not scum put that final vote on.

(If you or anyone else wants to discuss this further, and if you're discussing the playstyle in general rather than this specific instance, mafia discussion is probably a better place than a game-in-progress)

[Vesuvan]

Either you were lurking on purpose (scummy) or not paying attention to this game (poor play).

Or logging onto the site quickly to post in two games that I was actively participating in and was able to reply to quickly, and not checking other forums since I didn't have time to.

Really, the point you're bringing up isn't much of a point at all.

It isn't? The thread is open for three days, you're participating in other games and post in the thread only when it's noticed you're missing. Maybe it's just me, but for the first day vote I think that's a good reason enough.

Hey, if it's an initial, semi-random vote then I agree entirely. As it was, I was making my posts in the other games when I only had a short time online, but you don't know that and don't have any reason to believe that, so as a reason to vote for someone, you have my wholehearted agreement.

It it's a lethal lynching vote you're talking about, then I disagree entirely. You do that when you're reasonably sure that the person is scum, not for fairly weak reasoning - unless you're scum, that is.

It's not a threat; it's a statement of how I would expect players react when someone puts a lethal vote onto someone who has just explained themselves. That's a large part of why I am generally unwilling to claim without a good reason to do so.

So, when playing with you that "statement" is a sure way to keep you throwing in the last vote ever, right? What you're saying is that anyone putting a last vote on a un-claimed person is probably scum and the blame is always on them, not in the person who didn't feel like claiming. How it does fit for scum to get in that spotlight you also mentioned the last votegiver should in your opinion receive?

LOL

Way to misrepresent an argument by ignoring the important point.

The difference is between lynching an unclaimed person for good reason and lynching an unclaimed person for very weak reasoning when the person has furthermore offered to claim if the people asking for him to claim can come up with a good reason.

For reference, in Mini 180 I was lynched without making a full claim for very good reason: placing the final vote on a lurker (I was mafia in that game). In that sort of situation the person making the lethal vote is under no additional suspicion. In the situation in this game you have a bandwagon for very weak reasoning (and lurking) and I had answered the weak reasoning, stopped lurking and explained why I wasn't claiming and asked if anyone had reason for me to claim. It's a completely different situation and the fact you're trying to imply that something that applies to a very specific situation applies to all situations makes me reasonably certain that you are scum.

As to how important my role is, that should have no relevance whatsoever on my decision. If I'm a vanilla townie, then I'm better off unclaimed in that situation to keep our power roles hidden from the scum, who I don't doubt were on that bandwagon to either get a quick lynch or fish for information.

My take in this situation is following and it differs from yours and Meme's I see:
If you're vanilla townie being bandwagoned on day one, sacrificing yourself will keep power-roles that much longer in play and uncovered. In my opinion if the next person bandwagoned claims a real power-role, you've played poorly if you're townie.

It's not about a townie being bandwagonned period, and the fact you're trying to make it so looks like you're trying to make it appear that I'm making an argument that I'm not. Further, despite my offer to discuss the strategy in principle elsewhere, you're carrying it on here. My only conclusion from this is that you're trying to make me look like scum because of my refusal to claim, and as I previously stated, that increases my suspicion that you are scum.

If a townie, power role or otherwise, is under a bandwagon for weak reasoning, claiming should not be the answer to get the bandwagon off them. Claiming should be a last resort, whether for a vanilla townie or a power role.

wtf? You're ready to lynch someone for refusing to claim with no real reason? Added to the BS "logic" I've quoted above...

I'm still of opinion that I have decent reason for my

day one

vote and I still view your "statement" as a threat I'm not going to be afraid of.

Yes, for your

day 1 vote

you have answered me. For your

willingness to lynch based on a player not claiming under a weak bandwagon

you have convinced me that you are scum.

[Vesuvan]

I don't care much for the olio bandwagon. I went through his posts and really didn't find anything all that bad. I also disagree with both Vesuvan and the silent speaker's reasons for voting for him.

Would you mind clarifying what problem you have with my reasoning?

He's straw-manning my position, mis-representing my arguments against him and going hell-bent to try to make me look scummy when there is nothing for him to work with. IMO that's more scummy than someone actively lurking in the thread.

Please tell me (and I'm quite open to anyone who disagrees with me here answering this) how someone actively lurking in the thread is more scummy than someone actively using craplogic to attack another player.

I'm quite in favor of a PBug lynch in the absence of other evidence, but I'm of the opinion that the evidence against Olio is stronger.

[Vesuvan]

Okay, 1 kill each night, but with different MO's. I agree with Axelrod that the kill on Olio was most probably a vig (or at least non-mafia) given the events yesterday. Before anyone asks, no I'm not a vig.

Looks like it's time to take a look over day 1...

Oh, and

FOS: MeMe

for trying to assign the kill to a specific role that hasn't been claimed.

[Vesuvan]

Vesuvan

: If I find out that someone's holding the role of SaberKitty, I'll want to take a good look at them. Why would you try to

quash

speculation stemming from the morning scene?

I always try to quash

unfounded

speculation, especially when it casts suspicion on a specific role-name that may or may not be responsible and may or may not even be in the game. The reason for this is that if someone comes forward and claims to be Saberkitty, then the person doing so will be considered scummy based on that speculation, especially if they claim to have a non-killing role. If someone who is scum happens to be Saberkitty, then this sort of speculation could assist them in making a vig claim.

Basically, it's unfounded speculation and it has the potential to either mis-inform the town or assist scum in making false claims.

Since DP has asked for more people to vote and I don't really have much else to work with at this stage,

Vote: MeMe

[Vesuvan]

vote: Nox

. It's hard to really go by yesterday's voting pattern to find the most scummy person (since olio turned out clean), but I felt Nox was really pushing her arguments against PBug, maybe to protect suspicion against someone else? I know it's not much of a vote, but does anyone have anything else?

My vote for PBug was, I'm sorry to say since he turned out town, highly supported and I presented my evidence on as to why I found him scummy. Absolutly contentlessposts, apart from getting drunk once, the only text he put in his posts were votes. I found this highly scummy, as he was jumping on every passing bandwagon, WITHOUT supporting his votes. A player that only lurks around and jumps on every bandwagon with posts like" OMG Youre right! Vote:someone"or "OMG What he says is true ! Vote:Someone else" really passes off as scummy for me. I don't think anyone could deny that. Yes, I was pressing hard. I don't deny it. What do you want?

I thought he was scum

.

And, might I add, I dont recall voting for Vesuvan nor Saberkitty.

*checks Nox's voting patterns*

right you are.

Unvote: MeMe
Vote: Commodore Amazing

[Vesuvan]

I don't understand why we're using votes against Vesuvan and SaberKitty as damning evidence. Neither of them has been confirmed innocent.

We're not - well, at least I'm not.

I'm using your representation of what looks to me like a fairly good pro-town voting pattern (i.e. cautious play and looking for someone behaving scummy rather than just "looking for a lynch") as an indication of that person being scummy as a reason to vote for you. How can you say Nox is the scummiest person from yesterday's voting patterns?

[Vesuvan]

On the Mith issue, I suspect that whether town or mafia, the role is probably a powerful one. It's probably best not to share too much more info about that unless you have some other indication one way or the other.

In the interest of getting some discussion happenning instead of going around in circles, I've gone and read through the thread and noticed a lot of good arguments toward looking closer at Axelrod, and noticed something that people haven't pointed out about him: I have counted a grand total of 2 posts in this thread where he is formulating an opinion of his own rather than just echoing someone else's points.

The previous arguments against him include poorly reasoned votes (actually, he's quoting someone else's reasons in most of these cases) and his tendancy to be very defensive of any questions brought up regarding him. There are also a number of very weak "tells" that I'm picking up, such as what looked like an early attempts to set up a safe-claim or identify roles that might have additional information about the setup with his early speculation. Looking over the whole thread at once, I've noticed a lot of FOS'es thrown his way, and well-reasoned ones at that, but also that he has been able to slip under the radar very effectively, in several cases thanks to attention being drawn toward other people (which might indicate fellow mafia members if he turns out to be one).

It's a little on the annoying side that after the game has been going for so long that we have relatively little to work with, but this looks like the strongest lead I can see at this time.

While I'm still suspicious of CA's misrepresentation of Nox's voting pattern on day 1, I'm more suspicious of just what's going on with Axelrod, so

Unvote: CA, Vote: Axelrod

[Vesuvan]

Just catching up - I'll post some more examples of what I mean about Axelrod following other peoples' opinions and views a bit when I have some more time.

This recent bit has actually pushed Nox over Axelrod in my books, though I suspect part of this may be my having a very different approach to this game to what Nox appears to have. In brief, I have looked at Roland's play - it was one of the things I did when reviewing the thread - and his playstyle matches one of a player who has an info role that he's not sure of how powerful it is, as well as some other possibilities. It may be a difference of opinion, but I have often found that watching what the person claiming such things does to be more effective than attacking them. I particularly don't find stifling discussion into something other than what you want to focus on to be a good townie play, but it can be an excellent scum one.

Unvote: Axelrod, Vote: Nox

, though I am no less suspicious of Axelrod than I was earlier.

[Vesuvan]

Ugh. Can another player call me paranoid now? This post REALLY bothered me, and I hope it bothers everyone else too.

Nope, it bothered me just as much.

Then again, I've been accused of paranoia before, too...

Incredible FoS: Commodore Amazing

Totally agreed (left out Nox since my vote is there). Especially after CA pointed out that he was keeping the votes even to observe scum voting patterns (hint: traps don't work when you tell the person you're trying to trap that it's there)

[Vesuvan]

Anyone know who Polarboy is?

Assuming that's a believable claim from Nox,

Unvote: Nox, Vote: Commodore Amazing

[Vesuvan]

MatthewV attended jeepfest.

Can you confirm the same in regards to Polarboy?

[Vesuvan]

Here is the list I am aware of:

For the record, here are the people who came to the event in order of arrival:

JEEP, JEEPsWife and Willow were here, of course
Tally & Lump
Hey_Herb and Hey_Wife live in town, but swung by the house to get the car seat and hung out chatting for a while, so that counts as their arrival to the con.
Big_Kahunia
Coyote
IS, ISWife, The Onion, mith, and Cadmium
Groza528, PookyTheMagicalBear
mathcam and halfpint showed up for a few hours
Nonny
Samadhi, Mackay, and Pablo (Pablo only stayed for a couple hours)
FaerieFire and Boyfriend rolled in with MatthewV and CasinoPete
Hey_Kids were here too, but I don't remember when they first showed up.
On Thursday Yoko Kurama arrived. He was the last to arrive.

*checks Jeepfest discussion thread*

Damn, there goes that theory.

Apparently my role didn't attend Jeepfest either.

And TSS, I think you're reading WAY too much into a form of analysis that can't be taken as an absolute of someone being scum or not. That gets my

FOS: TSS

[Vesuvan]

Also, I think I know how Someone knows Nox is town. I'm pretty sure from that Someone is also town. However, someone apparently missed the important part of what was said. This tells me precisely one of two possible things about that person.

Unvote: Commodore Amazing
Vote: MeMe

[Vesuvan]

Vesuvan, what's the case against MeMe? I try not to pick fights with her since it tends to get me killed, and I've always been wrong anyway. I can tell you're trying to be cryptic or something in your last post, but when you use both "Someone" and "someone," I get lost.

I tend to be somewhat cryptic, but there's something in Nox's roleclaim that should be obvious to some people in this game. I didn't notice it until I checked my role PM to verify that my role did not attend Jeepfest.

MeMe used this to attack Someone. That tells me something about her role. Adding that to some past behavior, I think we've found us some scum.

And sorry to channel BabyJesus here, but anyone voting for Nox, Someone or me over this mutual confirmation makes my list of confirmed scum.

[Vesuvan]

Uh, maybe I'm just missing something but where did MeMe accuse Someone of anything based on his role claim? All I saw her do was ask how, given that Someone is a plain townie, he *knows* that Nox is one too.

Actually, what she said was:

Someone: If you're telling the truth, you know you're innocent...but you

can't

know that Nox is.

I know why Someone believes that Nox is innocent and a vanilla townie as she claims. From this, I also know that Someone is a vanilla townie and innocent as he claims.

Now, MeMe should have realised that there was something in Nox's claim that tipped Someone off. At first, I wasn't aware of what it was and was chasing up the wrong lead. When I looked in the right place I realised exactly how Someone knew Nox was a townie. There is a hint in Nox's claim that tipped me off to both of them being vanilla townies as claimed.

To be honest, I don't know why she asked this as Someone only said he

believed

Nox to be telling the truth, which is far from the same thing; but I wouldn't call that an attack on Someone.

It's an attempt to discredit Someone by saying that there is no way he could know that Nox is a townie. That's exactly what I'd do if I were scum in that situation - discredit the hint that is effectively turning vanilla townies into Masons.

By the way, I checked, and the people still voting for Nox or Someone are MeMe, roland (who

did

suggest that he still thought Someone scummy, despite the fact that Someone was willing to deadline-lynch himself!) The Shadow, LoudmouthLee... and Fuldu and Mr Stoofer. Instead of being a solitary vote for MeMe, why not help bandwagon someone equally scummy if not more and with triple the votes (counting yours)?

MeMe's attempt to discredit the verification of Someone and Nox is very scummy. We know she isn't a vanilla townie, and her play doesn't fit with a townie power role.

[Vesuvan]

*checks first post*

OK that makes it a lot less "confirmed".

Doesn't reduce my suspicion of MeMe any for her method of discrediting Someone, though.

[Vesuvan]

This logic can be turned on its head, though. If MeMe's scum, how would she know there's a hint there to discredit?

From the speed with which Someone came forward to defend Nox and present himself as a better lynch. That sort of thing usually tells me that the person reacting in such a way is either scum or noticed something very telling.

It's an attempt to discredit Someone by saying that there is no way he could know that Nox is a townie. That's exactly what I'd do if I were scum in that situation - discredit the hint that is effectively turning vanilla townies into Masons.

Um...no. This was an attempt to dissuade Someone from voting for himself to protect someone that I saw no reason should be considered non-scummy.

Actually, Someone explained the reason for his vote on himself: it was because it would give more information in analysis of the voting patterns (I'm assuming - reasonably I would expect - that this is based on TSS's analysis of voting patterns from day 1)

And Fuldu said it well. My vote's still on Nox deliberately.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about not fitting with a townie power role.

And before anyone points it out, I'll quite readily admit that I'm bringing personal bias into this and that any analysis of playstyle is inherently subjective.

But the second half I don't even understand the logic behind. If you'd like to point to specific instances of her behavior not fitting with a power role, I'd be happy to consider them, but in my experience different power roles (and roles with different degrees of power) can take very different approaches to the game. And that says nothing of the fact that different players take different approaches to the game.

It will take more time to go through the thread and point out examples of what I'm talking about than I have time to do right now. Basically, IMO, MeMe's play would fit with a vanilla townie or scum. When she had confirmed that she was not a vanilla townie (which is now invalid as the info in the first post has been pointed out), that made the most likely situation, to me, that she is scum.

[Vesuvan]

The last page is a perfect example of what I'm voting MeMe for, Fuldu.

[Vesuvan]

Given the deadline,

Unvote: MeMe

,

Vote: MrStoofer

[Vesuvan]

Where were we?

Oh yes, that's right.

Vote: MeMe

[Vesuvan]

Okay, TSS, the reasoning behind your analysis has either lost me completely or it is intentionally misleading.

Clearly, that didn't work, but equally clearly, assuming a clean oliowagon the day 1 Saberwagon was also not scum-supported. Here are the voting records of those who did not vote olio, and are still alive:

How would NOT being on the Olio wagon be indicitive of someone being scum when Olio turned out to be a townie?

That's only the first problem I have with your analysis and it continues to look very misleading from there.

FOS: TSS

[Vesuvan]

Wow... Axelrod has been studying my playbook from the Misetings games! Just add a little dramatic flair at certain points and that could have been one of my posts.

Thing is, I'm pretty used to picking flaws in these sort of arguments too. The number of misrepresentations in Axelrod's PBPA is rather telling. If requested I'll go through and highlight them in detail, but I suspect that a lot of people here would prefer fewer rather than more long posts. For quick reference, I'm looking mostly at the analysis of posts 107, 163 (esp. in conjunction with 8&9), 189 (in conjunction with 190), 279, 384, 388 (in conjunction with 354). The only ones I found particularly accurate and relevant were 405 and 436.

Do you not see the difference that I'm trying to point to? You have a list of eight people for whom you feel greater suspicion but regarding whom you have little concrete evidence to present. You then immediately follow that up with a single concrete argument against two of them. To my mind, that clearly implies a greater degree of suspicion regarding those two, or at least it ought to. The comment I made about having very little basis for your suspicion was not a criticism so much as it was an attempt at a comparison between what you were saying about the eight and what you were saying about the two. I will admit to having criticized the quality of the second argument, since it basically relies on Mafia both knowing the identity of the SK and having some reason to protect him.

But more tellingly, the argument you've chosen to respond to is the one that I explicitly said didn't contribute to my opinion of you as scum. It's an argument about linkages, which only means something if we have additional information about one of the players being linked. I think you're scum because of the way you're fishing for information. All of what you've responded to in the quoted paragraph is about the highly secondary question of whether MeMe is scum with you.

Wow... I'm agreeing with Fuldu twice in one day of a thread! Anyway, it's another point I've noticed in regards to Axelrod. I'm also noticing something of a two-tone playstyle of either following other peoples' opinions without putting forward much of his own, or trying to lead the town, but with very little middle-ground.

I'm still suspicious of MeMe for reasons stated yesterday (and no I can't substantiate it any more than I did then), but I can actually substantiate my reasons for thinking Axelrod is scum.

Unvote: MeMe
Vote: Axelrod

IGMEOY: MeMe

[Vesuvan]

I disagree. If I'm scum, I would have to be pretty gutsy to analyse stuff like tss. Just as our voting patterns tend to reveal us as scum, so would tss's accusations. All this analysis he's making is helping the town get a better read on him. If he's scum, he's extremely careful scum that needs to cover his tracks just in case his mafia buddy dies and possibly incriminates him.

I'm in no way saying that tss is cleared, but the way he's going about analysing votes and things seems like a pro-town thing to do.

Just to back Fuldu up here, the "big-posts-when-scum" bit is something of a trademark of my playstyle on Misetings (where Axelrod is also a member). It's something Thesp and Seol are also well known for over there. The idea behind it is to present a lot of information and analysis, which is for the most part accurate, but which you can also interpret in ways that help you when you can get away with it.

It often leads to the person providing the analysis giving the town one of their own people, but it also allows that person to direct the town toward a mis-lynch in situations where it is critical for the town to lynch a certain person, and helps to direct conversation to get information regarding certain people (my specialty has been getting doctors and vigilantes lynched and cops to expose themselves).

Don't assume that just because someone makes long, analytical posts that they can not be scum. It's a strategy that has worked quite a few times.

[Vesuvan]

If PeaceBringer uses his ability, he can't contribute the following day. If he's town, that's bad -- especially if his visions are useless. I think he should tell us what he saw before deciding whether or not he should use it or even whether we think he's telling the truth.

Basically, it doesn't make any sense to me for DP to restrict a player for using an ability to the degree that PeaceBringer claims to be restricted unless the ability is exceptionally strong

.

So are you trying to say that we should metagame against the possibility of our mod putting a weak ability with a restriction in a game?

Then we get to CA's claim and the (intentional?) misdirection you have been playing throughout the game in regard to assigning kills to specific people.

I don't think it's worth getting a bandwagon started on you when I agree with the Axelrod bandwagon, but if I were to have some role where I get to vote for 2 people, my second one would be on MeMe right now.

[Vesuvan]