Mini 578 - Mistery at Montescuro - Game Over!

[Guardian]

Maybe I vary my playing style. Maybe I'm ADD this game.

None of that doesn't change that my post 259 is accurate and that Dasquian is scum.

[Macavenger]

I've read through the last couple of pages a couple times now. Surprisingly little content to catch up on, actually.

I see Guardian's point on Dasquian - it's occurred to me several pages back - but I think he's once again blowing it way out of proportion. I'm also somewhat reassured by the higher amount of content in Dasquian's more recent posts.

I also understand what Coron said about the Near lynch not quite feeling right, to a certain extent. Paradoxically though, his recent increased posting has actually helped dispel that feeling in me. I'm more comfortable lynching him now than I was a couple days ago.

I still don't like Guardian's methods this game. He's moving back up my scum list somewhat.

Coron seems more townlike recently.

[Claus]

Vote Count!

Near 4 - Singing Librarian, Macavenger, Joudas, Dasquian
JamesthePhox 4 - Sensfan, Yosarian2, Near, Coron
Dasquian 1 - Guardian
Guardian 1 - PyroDwarf

Not voting:

JamesThePhox, EvilGorrilaz

With 12 people alive and kicking, it takes 7 votes to lynch!

[Singing Librarian]

Maybe I vary my playing style. Maybe I'm ADD this game.

None of that doesn't change that my post 259 is accurate and that Dasquian is scum.

Guardian, I still don't think you're scum, but reading your posts is getting increasingly frustrating in this game (not that I can talk - reading my posts is getting increasingly rare). It seems that in general your posts are making less and less sense, and your arguments don't have very much substance. I can't help feeling that Joudas is right, in that you're trying to be Mr Charisma, but also forced to be Mr Cryptic because you haven't got anything solid.

I looked back at the stuff surrounding your initial vote for JtP.

* Post 36 - voted for James the Phox
* Post 43 - indicated that you don't want to say why you voted for JtP and said "It requires 4 more votes to lynch Fox. Use your votes wisely ." Even with the winking smiley, this is essentially an encouragement to vote for Phox for no reason.
* Post 68 - finally gave a reason for voting Phox. However, the post referred to (post 38) occurred after your vote. "Some more foxy votes would be nice" certainly looks like an encouragement to join the bandwagon.

I don't see how that can really be squared with post 269/270.

I didn't want more phox votes at that time, I just wanted to leave the implication that I did. I think that that's fairly obvious from my later postings.

I also don't see much difference between your calls for more votes on Phox and more votes on Dasquian. The Dasquian case seems even weaker than the Phox one, but you're still doing the 'come on, vote for him, come on!' thing that you did with Phox. "Follow my lead." "Try voting him. It just feels so right." "(more duckscum votes plz)".

[Joudas]

So, um, you're FoSing me for being charismatic and for scum hunting. Good work.

To clarify, the FoS on you is contingent upon Guardian being confirmed scum. My beef with you is dependent on him being found scummy to establish the link.

But Librarian nailed it pretty much on the nose. Guardian, your arguments are mostly transparent - it's as though you're trying to reinforce a weak argument with a lot of subtle "Come on, guys - let's do this, k?" suggestion, hoping to cause someone to "go with the flow" and jump on your bandwagon with little to no evidence so you can "spring the trap" or whatever and catch them in it, or something - this is all I can gather from your two attempts at getting someone lynched this game. If that's the plan, it's a bad one, because it's just as likely to catch town as it is to catch scum. If you're honestly trying to get Dasquian lynched, you have essentially ruined your credibility. Again, good job.

[Coron]

So, um, you're FoSing me for being charismatic and for scum hunting. Good work.

To clarify, the FoS on you is contingent upon Guardian being confirmed scum. My beef with you is dependent on him being found scummy to establish the link.

Then why bring these facts up?

[Joudas]

Then why bring these facts up? Confused

Which facts? That there's a possible link between you and him? To make the theory public? No, I'm not FOSing you for being charismatic and scum hunting, I'm FOSing you for acting similarly to Guardian, whom I'm FOSing for acting that way. It would be inconsistent to FOS one of you and not the other.

[Dasquian]

Dear Diary,

I haven't posted since the last page, and even though I don't have much to say, I don't want to get accused of coasting again. I bet that big poopyhead Guardian would say that, he's such a mean jerk. I heard he told Debbie and Hannah that I called Stacey a bitch which is TOTALLY NOT TRUE (even though she is a bit of a bitch).

Also, Debbie told me that Hank said that Kurt was going to ask me to the dance! He is such a hottie!!!

xxx

Actual post content:

- Near isn't posting much again. I would bet that if the pressure doesn't stay on, he'll go back to lurking. Near, feel free to prove me wrong.
- I do need to reread the JtP case, since he's the other vote leader. I'd also like to hear his thoughts for how we should proceed too.
- I'm relieved that I'm not the only one calling Guardian's tactics out for what they are. In particular I stewed a bit more on him calling out 234, which I didn't rebut in my last volley of posts.

Here's the exchange:

Coron, what info have you gathered?

I think Pyro is a good lynch, that's what I'm getting.

Do you think he is a better lynch than Near? If so, why?

Now, I asked that because Near was, in my mind, the current "hot topic". Since Guardian was a big fan of doling out the questions, I thought I'd reciprocate the favour and put him on the spot about why he was looking past Near and focussing on Pyro, and what made Pyro more worthy of comment than Near. His response seemed pretty reasonable to me (that he saw the case on Near, but preferred it to have more guts than a lurker hunt, but would agree to a policy lynch if necessary).

Now, he's called out 234 as me setting him up for a trap with a supposed scum-buddy, but it occurs to me that that accusation is a total two-way street. If Guardian is scum and knows one of them to be his buddy, by making that very accusation he's setting

me

up to take a fall if the scum-buddy gets lynched - "Hey guys, I told you earlier! He was setting me up when he asked me that question!"

This is getting pretty contrived, since it's assuming one of Pyro/Near to be scum

with

Guardian-scum, so I'm going to leave it there. As a direct rebuttal to the accusation though, since Guardian was so assertive about it "REEK"ing of scum, I wanted to know why he overlooked Near to talk about Pyro. That's all.

[Coron]

Then why bring these facts up? Confused

Which facts?

The fact that I'm "charismatic and point a lot of fingers"

[Guardian]

I hate mafia, because I have to convince people of stuff I'm pretty sure about. Why can't you just trust my motives and judgment?

My case on phox was weak. I have no idea how you can possibly say that my holistic analysis of Dasquian's play throughout the game is anywhere near being on the same level as my case on Phox.

My case on Phox was about one minor inconsistency, which he admitted to later, and then I remained suspicious of him for, but shoot, that wasn't something to lynch him over, at least not on its own.

My case on Dasquian is an analysis of all his posts, his play, and suspects throughout the game, concluding that he hasn't been interested in creative scum hunting and instead has focused on two of the weakest, newest players in the game, VH and Near.

It seems that in general your posts are making less and less sense, and your arguments don't have very much substance.

That's such a load of whooey. Dasquian's play this game is not consistent with pro-town motivations. He hasn't tried to scum hunt hard targets, or look into players who don't seem that suspicious to see what their motives might be. He's only focused on the easy, gimme, low-lying fruit suspicions -- suspicions that many (first me, then Coron, then others) have agreed are "easy" lynches.

But Librarian nailed it pretty much on the nose. Guardian, your arguments are mostly transparent

What?? Transparent = easy to see the reasoning behind = easy to evaluate = easy to see are correct = you should be voting Dasquian. If my arguments were transparent to you, we wouldn't be having this disagreement. What did you mean when you said transparent?

I still don't like Guardian's methods this game. He's moving back up my scum list somewhat.

Why? Is focusing on players that have gone entirely unnoticed a bad thing? Is focusing on players that have gone entirely unnoticed -- and are likely scum -- a bad thing? Justify your statement. Why are my methods indicative of a pro-scum alignment?

[Dasquian]

Dasquian's play this game is not consistent with pro-town motivations. He hasn't tried to scum hunt hard targets, or look into players who don't seem that suspicious to see what their motives might be. He's only focused on the easy, gimme, low-lying fruit suspicions -- suspicions that many (first me, then Coron, then others) have agreed are "easy" lynches.

Easy != wrong.

Sorry, but your case boils down to two assumptions:

1) Near and VH are both innocent.
2) Given that they're both innocent, I am scummy for pressing them for their scummy behaviour.

Now, (1) is a big ol' assumption we won't have for sure until they're both dead, or investigated, or have otherwise cleared themselves. Sure, feel free to suspect they are, and back it up with reasoning, that's all part of the game. But you're using that as a given and moving on to...

(2) is already shaky because of its reliance on (1). If VH or Near are scum, I'd like to think that that counts in my favour quite well. Sure enough, I could be bussing a scum-mate, but nevertheless, I'd like to cash in on the pro-towniness of pressuring a scum, please. If they're scum.

If they ARE both innocent though... now this is where your case can actually begin, and you could then validly criticise my stance on them as bandwagon targets. I'd still defend that I have done nothing scummy in attacking them, as I believe both of them deserved the pressure I gave them. I would also attack your continued assertion that I've focussed on no one else; as I keep saying, I listed out other suspicions on a previous page, I just didn't commit to any to the point of supporting a bandwagon.

Executive summary: your entire case assumes Near's and Coron's innocence, and your scumdar is off anyway.

[Guardian]

285 is a very reasonable post. I shall retreat to the bat-cave and consider if changing my stance is appropriate.

In the meanwhile, can you summarize, or link me to an appropriate summary, of all the reasons you find Near suspicious? Coron?

[Joudas]

The fact that I'm "charismatic and point a lot of fingers"

That's what I thought you meant - and I already answered it. To point out the similarities between your style and Guardian's, coupled with the similar opinions and Guardian's "I'm with Coron!" bout there, if Guardian turns up scum at some point I intend to revisit this based on this evidence. Consider it a forewarning.

[Joudas]

What did you mean when you said transparent?

I almost agree with you.

Transparent = easy to see the reasoning behind = easy to evaluate = easy to see the motivation behind = easy to come to the conclusion you're trying to manipulate folks into voting for your supposed scum-find.

While Dasquian certainly isn't the towniest of the townies, I don't think he's scum. At least not based on the evidence you've presented.

[Yosarian2]

So, um, you're FoSing me for being charismatic and for scum hunting. Good work.

Anyway, Near and Joudas, I don't really see the case against Guardian here. I mean, with his sudden Dasquin attack he certanly dosn't look like scum going for an easy bandwagon, unless his scumbuddies are both Near and Phox and he's trying to protect both of them, and that dosn't make any sense either since he was attacking Phox earlier. He mostly just looks like a townie trying to do some agressive scumhunting. I've got good vibes from him in general so far. If you could explain why you suspect him, that'd help. I'm asking both of you, but ESPECALLY directing this question to Near, since you just seem to be saying Guardian is scum but didn't give any reasons for it at all. Why, exactally, do you think Guardian is scum, Near?

[Joudas]

I was feeling pretty good about Guardian's towniness until recently, but this last 'Hay guyz come vote for this guy k?" thing has changed my opinion. I feel I've made it pretty clear why, but it feels a bit like he's trying to plan ahead and sow seeds for subsequent days. If he plants suspicion about a number of different people, it's easier to convince folks to lynch them later, and he's simultaneously testing town's malleability with his "Come on, do it, it's the right thing to do, wink!" attitude.

His recent change of direction lends credence to one of my earlier points, though - Guardian,

that

is why it's better not to lynch someone in a hurry on a hunch. I love how you went from "Dasquian's scum, lynch him now, yep! You're all dumb for not trusting me!" to "Dasquian may not be as scummy as I thought, let me rethink my position." in the course of a half page.

[Coron]

The fact that I'm "charismatic and point a lot of fingers"

That's what I thought you meant - and I already answered it. To point out the similarities between your style and Guardian's, coupled with the similar opinions and Guardian's "I'm with Coron!" bout there, if Guardian turns up scum at some point I intend to revisit this based on this evidence. Consider it a forewarning.

How does similarities is playstyle have anything to do with anything, also, if you think that Guardian and I have played even moderately similar styles during this game, you are most likely either mentally handicapped or on hallucinogens.

In addition, scum are more likely to jump in with a townie in such an obvious way than their scum partners(wifom of course but this is just my experience), both to gain their trust, and maybe incriminate them. This is why I pointed out that Guardians sheeping made me kind of suspicious.

[Dasquian]

In the meanwhile, can you summarize, or link me to an appropriate summary, of all the reasons you find Near suspicious? Coron?

Is this two questions directed at me, one question directed at me and Coron, or one question directed at Coron? 263 has my most recent summary though.

[Guardian]

In the meanwhile, can you summarize, or link me to an appropriate summary, of all the reasons you find Near suspicious? Coron?

Is this two questions directed at me

,

one question directed at me and Coron, or one question directed at Coron

? 263 has my most recent summary though.

263 seems to have a good summary on why Near is suspicious. Can you link to or restate your current stance on Coron and why you have that stance? If you no longer find him suspicious, can you explain why you found VH suspicious and at what point your suspicions changed?

[Dasquian]

My current stance on Coron is pretty much neutral. I found VH suspicious because of his early-game voting. I carried that (admittedly weak) reason forward up until the point he got replaced, and basically dropped it as soon as Coron replaced in and didn't set off my scumdar.

Essentially it was a weak page 2 case that lasted longer than it should've done due to VH's absence.

[Evilgorrilaz]

In addition, scum are more likely to jump in with a townie in such an obvious way than their scum partners(wifom of course but this is just my experience), both to gain their trust, and maybe incriminate them. This is why I pointed out that Guardians sheeping made me kind of suspicious.

Huh?
I don't quite get this. Could you clarify this a bit?

[Coron]

Basically, scum try to avoid direct connections with one another, but often times scum "buddy up" with a townie to gain their trust and incriminate that townie should the scum die.

[Macavenger]

Why can't you just trust my motives and judgment?

Because we're playing Mafia.

I still don't like Guardian's methods this game. He's moving back up my scum list somewhat.

Why? Is focusing on players that have gone entirely unnoticed a bad thing? Is focusing on players that have gone entirely unnoticed -- and are likely scum -- a bad thing? Justify your statement. Why are my methods indicative of a pro-scum alignment?

I'm tired of playing your everyone-has-to-justify-everything-to-me game. Justify why your vote-hopping, immediately following the replacement of a player you agreed was scummy, and holier-than-thou attitude are indicative of a pro-town alignment.

[Guardian]

Why can't you just trust my motives and judgment? :(

Because we're playing Mafia.

You'd be surprised at how many games I'd finished and realized that we'd have won had the town just trusted me implicitly.

You'd also be surprised at the shockingly few times that doing so would have switched a town-win to a town loss; I think I've lost exactly two games as scum in which I was lynched without direct role-related information saying I should be (I've been NK'd, copped, lover'd, you name it, and lost as scum... but when I'm lynched as scum statistically speaking, I'm about as likely to win as when I'm not). I've also have been off in my suspicions when I was pro-town a shockingly low percentage of the time.

Moving on...

I still don't like Guardian's methods this game. He's moving back up my scum list somewhat.

Why? Is focusing on players that have gone entirely unnoticed a bad thing? Is focusing on players that have gone entirely unnoticed -- and are likely scum -- a bad thing? Justify your statement. Why are my methods indicative of a pro-scum alignment?

I'm tired of playing your everyone-has-to-justify-everything-to-me game.

You're not playing the right game. I'm playing the everyone-has-to-justify-everything-to-me-and the-rest-of-the-town game, and I think that's a great game to play in mafia, leads to successful lynches, and town wins.

Justify why your vote-hopping

Vote hoping is a great way to keep players on their toes, draw out reactions, and force scum to comment on a wide range of targets, hopefully including their scum buddies -- something that, as Coron rightly pointed out, can be very difficult for scum to do without leaving a trail connecting them with their partner.

immediately following the replacement of a player you agreed was scummy

I'm not sure how this could be construed as unhelpful. Unorthodox, sure. But I'm confused as to how to justify it, because it is difficult to wrap my mind around assuming the activity to be suspicious.

I followed Coron to see what would happen; I think I made that abundantly clear. I wanted to see both how he reacted to my zealous support of him, and thought that adding some more oomph to his suspicion of Pyro might be helpful.

holier-than-thou attitude

If people feel that they have to justify themselves to me, that's a step in the right direction towards them feeling they have to justify their views, opinions, and actions to everyone. People -- importantly the scum -- explaining their motives, and then the town analyzing those motives and finding any anti-town motives or inconsistencies is the crux of mafia.

If getting on a pulpit aids this endeavor (and I'm experimenting in this game to see if it does -- trending yes, but I'll reevaluate at the end), then I'm all for being holier-than-you.

I'm certainly holier than those evil scums ;)!

[Near]

Hmm, at first when I read Guardian's post where he says:

I hate mafia, because I have to convince people of stuff I'm pretty sure about. Why can't you just trust my motives and judgment? "

I was like wow, guardian must be cop and he checked out dasquian N0. But then, this was a day start game. My first reaction was, wtf is guardian talking about. I actually started quoting Guardian's original post regarding his suspicion of Dasquian with an intent to argue why his post was scummy. But upon a re-read, it doesn't look that scummy. It actually sounds pretty reasonable.

Guardian, your main argument for suspecting Dasquian seems to be that he's been targeting weak preys all day. His initial suspicion of VH, you said, came to an end because he was replaced by a "good player". And now he's focusing on me. But then, aren't most people who are voting for me in the same category as Dasquian? What differentiates Dasquian from, say Macavenger? I think Macavenger is the main person who's been behind my wagon because I am not contributing much to this game.

Post 234, where he asks if I prefer Near or Pyro, REEKS like he knows ONE of them is scum, and wants to catch me in a trap later when one of them turns up as scum.

I think you are reading too much into this. But if this was true, then he probably hoped that you say you prefer Pyro lynch over me, for reason obvious to me (that is, if Dasquian is indeed scum).

Also, what do you think about post 246 where Dasquian explains reasons for voting me.