Newbie 595 - Game Over!

[shaka!!]

I'll answer those in full after school if you really wish, personally I don't like taking the game back to the start when I haven't finished reading it fully yet, but w/e.

And when I say take the game back to the start I really mean it, I won't stop arguing my point until everyone agrees with me.

Official Vote Count

snafoo - 2 (q21, Muerrto)

Super Archivist - 1 (massive)

Not Voting - 4 (Litral, snafoo, shaka!!, Super Archivist)

4 to Lynch (3 at deadline, May 20).

[q21]

Just a heads up. I have a monster project due for Friday and as such I'll be on self imposed limited access. I'll try to keep up and answer any direct questions, but there will be not in depth play from me for the rest of the week.

At the moment snafoo is my favourite. He has picked up his prod and posted... once. He may or may not have been sick, but any excuse is meaningless to me unless he starts participating in the game in a way I don't find scummy.

As such:

Confirm Vote: snafoo

[Super Archivist]

Shaka!!, you FOSed me for being eager to bandwagon Mike, but Mike turned out to be mafia... If I was scum, I would not want to do that.

Anyway, I dunno about snafoo... I still don't want to vote him until he participates like he said he would. No one else seems particularly scummy to me right now, so we'll see...

[Muerrto]

Shaka!!, you FOSed me for being eager to bandwagon Mike, but Mike turned out to be mafia... If I was scum, I would not want to do that.

Well, that's pretty bad WIFOM. I think his point was that because you jumped on so quickly you knew he was mafia because he's your partner. Not saying I agree or disagree but that was the point.

[Super Archivist]

But if I was mafia, why would I want to lynch my partner?

I can see where shaka is coming from, but I don't think the strategy of mafia voting for their partners would be worth it in a game with only two mafia.

If clarification is needed, I voted for Mike because I agreed with the people saying that his lurking was suspicious. Also, I hoped that voting for him would inspire him to post if he was town.

[Muerrto]

But if I was mafia, why would I want to lynch my partner?

I can see where shaka is coming from, but I don't think the strategy of mafia voting for their partners would be worth it in a game with only two mafia.

This is why you're in a newbie game =) It's called bussing. Mafia vote for each other CONSTANTLY. If I get paired with a newbie who's flailing I cut him loose, no question. Saying mafia wouldn't vote for mafia is definitely WIFOM, horrible too.

On second glance, I don't buy that you don't know what bussing is since your other posts seem to grasp the game okay. Also, you were fine voting for Litral even though he also voted for Mike?

Hm...don't like this post.

[Super Archivist]

Hmm... I had an idea about it, didn't know the term. I thought it was more about getting suspicion off themselves than getting rid of someone who might hinder them. And I didn't know they were so ruthless about it. o_o
Thanks for telling me, though.

And about Litral... I voted for him because he asked to be voted for. Mike didn't really have anything to do with it. Even if he did, Litral was the most reluctant to vote for him anyways...

[Litral]

If voting for scum = town, then we've already won this game, just lynch me, snafoo and shaka!! in order.

[shaka!!]

Post 86 is by snafoo. It talks about nothing you mentioned, though, maybe you're talking about another post which I cannot find?

Just for the record I have never said that someone is scummy before they are an IC/newbie. I think I've suggested "playing the IC card" once and "playing the newbie card" once as suspicious points.

Terribly sorry, I did mention the wrong post.

In fact, you're doing the very same thing. You're interpreting his words in your own little way. I do so in my own little way. Do you have the ability to do that? Yes? Then why not me? Because I'm a newbie?

This is the specific quote from the post I was talking about, I believe it was post 76, must've been a typo.

I mentioned that you seemed to split the game into IC's and newbs because of the "Because I'm a newbie?" comment. No body ever said or implied this yet you still brought it up.

In post 78 Litral misinterprets the argument at hand grossly, and seemly on purpose, to prove his point. FoS Litral.

Care to elaborate on that? What was the argument? What was my interpretation? And what point was I trying to prove?

Did you even read the post?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire logic is as follows:
1) snafoo is pursuing a "vote off ICs" campaign.
2) Therefore, snafoo must be voted off.

For point 1, snafoo has asked you to show how he is doing so and I would want you to do that as well. It makes too little sense to be his strategy.

For point 2, I'd like to see how you derived that. Do you think he's scum? Do you think he's just a bad townie? Clarify yourself, because you seem to accept both points.

The entire logic is so convoluted that I cannot understand why you're so determined to vote him.

In case you didn't, here it is. What you did was take Muerrto's argument and change it into something that fits your rebuttal. The real case at hand is a lot more complicated. Instead of disproving his logic as a whole you sum it up into something similar but very different and use that to disprove his argument.

Litral questions how Muerrto will look if Snafoo comes up as town in post 80. Well, Litral, it will reflect on him as being wrong, can you blame someone for being suspicious of a legitimately suspicious person and voting him 'till his lynch?

shaka!!, it was in response to Muerrto's "How will you look if snafoo comes up scum?" and my response, "How will you look if snafoo comes up town?" was meant to say "If you're saying I'm defending someone irrationally, I could as well say you're attacking someone irrationally." Your argument can be used on my side too; well, if snafoo turns up scom, it will reflect on my being wrong, can you blame me for casting suspicion on the motives behind what I perceived as a bad argument?

The unfair thing is I can. Because I viewed him as someone who was legitimately scummy, so when he comes up as scum (hypothetically of course) I am going to think bad of you because I thought he was suspicious.

In post 96 Litral mentions that there is no reason to abandon a good bandwagon for a weak one. In response I ask, who decides what is a good bandwagon and what is not a good bandwagon? And to that I answer the individual who is given the choice.

And yet the individual must be responsible to the town. What I was saying is that putting pressure on Demonking = obviously good, because he's disappeared. Voting snafoo at that point? I wanted more clarification on that because the reasons that were given were not good to me.

Yes and you were putting pressure on him and he didn't respond so it obviously wasn't working. Also, there is no need for the whole game to stop while everyone tries to get lurkers posting, you can attack lurkers all you want but that shouldn't stop anyone from pursuing someone they think is scum.

Post 138 by Litral - That is a fair enough statement, but if you were put in that situation you'd not pick your prod and just get replaced instead. You'd be pretty dumb to put the town at risk because you don't like your role and don't want to play but for some reason won't allow anyone to replace you.

I think we can establish that Mike doesn't have good play. Okay, he just plain doesn't make sense, as you agree:

Indeed, to be honest I'd like to hear his line of thoughts. Was this intentional? Did he pick up the prod with intents to carry on playing in the game and just lost interest after the prod? Or did he pick up the prods with intent on lurking to the very last post? Thoughts like those can't stop running through my head ):

I've never actually seen scum try the lurker tactic as hard as he did,

I'm just suggesting a possibility in which he is not scum and yet does not post, in order to counter the notion that he is definitely obvscum.

Um... Ok.. Lol.

Post 140 by Litral doesn't read good either, why are you scared to hammer someone? Are you trying to avoid the attention on day 2?

To avoid attention, I would definitely not post. Please explain how advocating not hammering will in fact avoid attention. There's a huge difference between not hammering, and suggesting that no one hammers. And you must notice I have in no way avoided attention.

Yes because not posting obviously helps avoid attention, just look at how well it worked for Mike!

And I meant that you were possibly trying to avoid the attention given to you the next if he turned out to be innocent, which he didn't. You don't need to worry about this tell because him coming up scum nerfs it.

How ever, him coming up scum brings up a new tell, you being so cautious to hammer him looks like newb scum not wanting to lynch his partner.

I don't like the circumstances surrounding the lynch.

I think you understand why I didn't want to hammer as well.

Funny that, cause right now I think you didn't want to hammer because he was your scum buddy

This is based

solely

on what I just realized, you not wanting to hammer him, him turning out scum. I haven't taken anything else I mentioned into the equation so don't jump the gun on this because for now I don't have much to support it and it doesn't stand strong with even myself yet, I need more evidence first.

_________________________________________________________

Shaka!!, you FOSed me for being eager to bandwagon Mike, but Mike turned out to be mafia... If I was scum, I would not want to do that.

Anyway, I dunno about snafoo... I still don't want to vote him until he participates like he said he would. No one else seems particularly scummy to me right now, so we'll see...

Yes well, two problems with that.

Firstly, I read blind. So I don't know what the current position of the game is, I didn't read the first page so I didn't know the outcome of day 1.

Secondly, WIFOM. 'nuff said.

[shaka!!]

I'll continue my read soon, I just want to take a bit of a break from my last post.

[shaka!!]

Day 2 we wake up to find Walnut dead. Naturally I have to reread him. Moving on..

Odd that Litral, in post 153, is so quick to defend himself on the Mike lynch. Not quite sure what to make of this, yet. Also, Litral, you just directly contradicted yourself.

I allowed you to hammer him because I wanted you to take the responsibility if he turned out town.

To avoid attention, I would definitely not post. Please explain how advocating not hammering will in fact avoid attention. There's a huge difference between not hammering, and suggesting that no one hammers. And you must notice I have in no way avoided attention.

This proves that you did not want to hammer because you did not want any attention on you the next day.

Now why would you say the opposite of something you said earlier in the game? I don't think this was a mistake. I think that you did not want to hammer your scum buddy and lied about the reasons surrounding his hammer to cover up.

Of course this is all just theories, but it's the only reason I can see you making such a hypocritical statement.

Major FoS: Litral.

I don't quite follow why all of a sudden your defense of snafoo is no longer suspicious.

Good point on the appealing to authority tell. But I find it hard to pin it against him because I empathize with him.

I don't see how Muerrto is trying to justify his certainty by stating that scum don't care who die. The only time they should care is when they choose their night kills.

________________________________________________________


Post 154 by massive gave me a lol. Of course you would've said that you'd have voted him.. He turned up scum! I just thought him saying so was funny, no scum tell here. At least, none that I can see.

I agree whole heartedly with post 155.

Litral says in post 160 that Muerrto OMGUS voted him, I disagree. He provided evidence to support his logic which gives him a reason to vote you.

Post 162 by Litral isn't good either. The mod explained that he was not going to be replaced because he picked up his prod. In fact he explained this twice. On top of that, it was thoroughly explained as to why he was scum lurking on not town, repeatedly. I don't buy this defense at all. He seems to be stretching a lot here.

FoS: Litral.

Litral makes a false statement in post 167. Mislynchs, believe it or not, do help the town. It gives us plenty of information about players. Who pushed his wagon the most and who said what about who and gives us a lot of information to analysis, not to mention the night kill that goes with it. I'm not saying we should go out and mislynch people, but it's not as detrimental as you'd think. Specially now that we have 9 players in a newbie game.

You're #2 and #3 on Meurrto are the same thing, so that is really just two points, btw.

Next few posts imo are miscommunication between the players. I don't think anyone insulted anyone anywhere, at least not intentionally.

Litral is very happy to help Muerrto lynch himself in post 172. I think this is more suspicious than Muerrto wanting to lynch him self.

q21 changes my mind about the appeal to authority in post 173.

Litral falls onto his terrible "I want a better game" defense in post 181. As I've explained previously, this doesn't give you an excuse, he was clearly scum. q21 also proved that your logic is flawed, because if you want an active game you get rid of the lurkers.

Gotto say, not looking good for you atm.

Litral again grossly misinterprets someones case to make his point. Reading this far into the game, I'm actually really surprised we aren't in day 3 already.

I agree with post 184.

Post 196 by Muerrto is good on snafoo, terrible on Litral. Muerrto, if you were both town, Litral would've realized what you realized in post 196 when you decided to vote yourself to get rid of him. He did not, instead he said yes let's lynch him. I willing to bet that if you did, Litral would have fought to the death trying to defend himself the next day.

Post 199 by SA is just annoying. SA I hope to see you add your own thoughts to the game some point later in this thread. If you don't I'm going to have to seriously doubt how much of a noob town you really are.

Post 213 by SA isn't good. He says that the plan was reckless and probably shouldn't have been done, yet he was fully prepared and in fact was the only to vote Litral on the plan.

FoS: Super A.

Post 236, HOORAY massive arrives! Maybe the game can pick up again :3

249 by SA is an improvement, but it still isn't good enough. He doesn't explain why he thinks something is suspicious.

Post 253 by Litral is good to get people talking, but I really hate the idea of those lists. It pretty much gives scum their night kills because they provide scum with information about what players think about other players and it helps them set up WIFOM cases on people that some poor townsman might end up finding and end up knocking himself or his target or both out. In short, listing = bad.

SA lists in post 254, fortunately there's not much in it.

Ok completely caught up! Not much happened in the late pages, there really isn't much to comment on there.

I'm going to place my vote in my next post.

[shaka!!]

Muerrto, if you were both town, Litral would've realized what you realized in post 196 when you decided to vote yourself to get rid of him. He did not, instead he said yes let's lynch him. I willing to bet that if you did, Litral would have fought to the death trying to defend himself the next day.

I want to elaborate on this because I think it is important.

Muerrto, when you decided that you wanted to be lynch as long as we'd lynch Litral the next day, Litral fully accepted it and even voted you to help it's progress.

After lots of pointless arguing, Litral does a complete 180 degree turn and does exactly the same as you do, even though he states he thinks it does not help town and is a reckless idea.

It is then when you realize that if you both are willing to lynch yourself before the other that you both must be town. Well, he is the problem with this.

When you decided that you wanted to lynch yourself and then have Litral lynched, he should have realized this. He should have said the same thing you did and stopped suspecting you or at least have not suspected you as much, because if he is town and he thinks you are scum, there is no reason for you lynch yourself first because then you lose the game.

He did not realize that, instead he voted you. That is not something a townie would have done.

Seeing as I've been reading and writing in this thread for the last four hours, I am not going to bother writing a summary to conclude this case. I also have one more post to write about who is next on my scum list.

[shaka!!]

Aaah! Pressed submit when I didn't mean to. Ignore that post, the next post will be the proper one.

[shaka!!]

Vote: Litral

As most have already said, his reluctance to vote for Mike is what made him ping on my scumdar.

How ever, the more I read on the more I found him suspicious.

Firstly he defense, he's claimed multiple times that he wasn't aware that Mike was purposely lurking.

I find this very odd considering the following..

Mike is your (the players') problem. I can't force someone to post, all I can do is prod them.[/b]

It's not that he's not posting. He was prodded for not posting and picked up his prod and said "I'm here" in response. He's paying attention to the game, therefore he does not get replaced. If a player chooses to lurk it's not the Mod's responsibility to deal with them. If he had not picked up his PM then he would have been replaced days ago. - Vel

FoS: Mike

as lurkerscum. If Vel isn't trying to replace him then he has picked up his prod, which means he's floating around and deliberately not participating. This is scummy in the extreme.

First point I'd like to make on the rest of the game is:

FoS: Mike as lurkerscum. If Vel isn't trying to replace him then he has picked up his prod, which means he's floating around and deliberately not participating. This is scummy in the extreme.

Um...we just found out he picked up his prod and didn't post...

Unvote, Vote: Mike

always. There's never a town reason to pick up your prod and not post.

Should be 1 down but if he's town he's let us all down.

Totally agree with Muerrto.

Vote: mike4876

He may or may not be scum, but either way he's not helping at all. And maybe voting for him will get him to post. =/

If Mike's picked up his prod, not posted, and is sitting at lynch -1 and not posting he should be hammered, period. If he's picked up his prod he won't be replaced so waiting is pointless. Give him till monday I guess then kill him.

If he picked up his prod and doesn't post the mod can't do anything. He's already said that just yesterday.

Um..never posts, yep. People quit. But he picked up his prod, I'm not quite sure how to explain that clearer. That means he checked the board and more likely checked this game. He's reading the posts and not posting.

It's the worst possible scum tactic and yet newbies still use it often.

There is no reason he'd pick up his prod and not post a simple 'I'm not here'. He can't start another game while in this one so why even come to the board if he's not playing?

I'm gonna assume you missed the whole 'picked up his prod' and what that meant and assume you're not that blatantly defending him...for now.

How on Earth can

anyone

say they weren't aware that he was actively lurking after they were warned about it

soo

much.

As well as that, he has (twice if I remember) grossly misrepresented people arguments and cases to fit his liking that makes him look correct, even though he is not. This is manipulation on purpose, something that makes no sense if he was town.

Those two posts are quoted here:

Very sorry for triple posting.

Muerrto, my entire point of arguing against your accusation of snafoo can be best summarized by observing your logic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire logic is as follows:
1) snafoo is pursuing a "vote off ICs" campaign.
2) Therefore, snafoo must be voted off.

For point 1, snafoo has asked you to show how he is doing so and I would want you to do that as well. It makes too little sense to be his strategy.

For point 2, I'd like to see how you derived that. Do you think he's scum? Do you think he's just a bad townie? Clarify yourself, because you seem to accept both points.

The entire logic is so convoluted that I cannot understand why you're so determined to vote him.

@Muerrto: so, to summarize, your "valid strategy" is:

1. Point at someone who pointed at you.
2. Kill self.

This implies that whomever you pointed at must be scum? How?

The tunnel vision doesn't help the town at all. If you're townie, simply bring out an argument against me instead of saying killing yourself will necessarily imply I'm scum. It is not true in any way whatsoever, the only confirmed townie is Walnut.

That said, I find q21's last comments extremely dangerous.

unvote

.

@q21: I have offered my argument against simply voting off one of us as a valid town strategy in the last post and this one. Please respond ASAP with your thoughts on whether or not this is a good strategy.

There was also this,

1) Appeal to authority. About three times.
2) Appeal to emotion.
3) "Just lynch me" playstyle

He adds in #3 even though #3 is the same as #2. Nothing terribly scummy but worth noting.

On top of this, something I have already pointed out and can't believe Muerrto missed.

Muerrto, if you were both town, Litral would've realized what you realized in post 196 when you decided to vote yourself to get rid of him. He did not, instead he said yes let's lynch him. I willing to bet that if you did, Litral would have fought to the death trying to defend himself the next day.

I want to elaborate on this because I think it is important.

Muerrto, when you decided that you wanted to be lynch as long as we'd lynch Litral the next day, Litral fully accepted it and even voted you to help it's progress.

After lots of pointless arguing, Litral does a complete 180 degree turn and does exactly the same as you do, even though he states he thinks it does not help town and is a reckless idea.

It is then when you realize that if you both are willing to lynch yourself before the other that you both must be town. Well, he is the problem with this.

When you decided that you wanted to lynch yourself and then have Litral lynched, he should have realized this. He should have said the same thing you did and stopped suspecting you or at least have not suspected you as much, because if he is town and he thinks you are scum, there is no reason for you lynch yourself first because then you lose the game.

He did not realize that, instead he voted you. That is not something a townie would have done.

Seeing as I've been reading and writing in this thread for the last four hours, I am not going to bother writing a summary to conclude this case. I also have one more post to write about who is next on my scum list.

[Litral]

What you did was take Muerrto's argument and change it into something that fits your rebuttal. The real case at hand is a lot more complicated. Instead of disproving his logic as a whole you sum it up into something similar but very different and use that to disprove his argument.

Ah, but that does not answer my question. When I asked for clarification, what I wanted was the difference between you thought Muerrto's case and my interpretation was. I don't see how it's more complicated. Also, what was your understanding of my point? Was my point simply to refute Muerrto whenever he votes? Did I want to get him lynched? Please elaborate.

if snafoo turns up scom, it will reflect on my being wrong, can you blame me for casting suspicion on the motives behind what I perceived as a bad argument?

The unfair thing is I can. Because I viewed him as someone who was legitimately scummy, so when he comes up as scum (hypothetically of course) I am going to think bad of you because I thought he was suspicious.

I see. Makes sense.

And I meant that you were possibly trying to avoid the attention given to you the next if he turned out to be innocent, which he didn't. You don't need to worry about this tell because him coming up scum nerfs it.

Indeed.

Funny that, cause right now I think you didn't want to hammer because he was your scum buddy

This is based solely on what I just realized, you not wanting to hammer him, him turning out scum. I haven't taken anything else I mentioned into the equation so don't jump the gun on this because for now I don't have much to support it and it doesn't stand strong with even myself yet, I need more evidence first.

I like this statement.

Also, Litral, you just directly contradicted yourself.

I allowed you to hammer him because I wanted you to take the responsibility if he turned out town.

To avoid attention, I would definitely not post. Please explain how advocating not hammering will in fact avoid attention. There's a huge difference between not hammering, and suggesting that no one hammers. And you must notice I have in no way avoided attention.

This proves that you did not want to hammer because you did not want any attention on you the next day.

I don't think this is a contradiction. In my second post, I am saying my not hammering him is not a ploy to avoid attention; I do not wish to avoid attention. In my first post, I am saying I did not want to be blamed for the death of a townie; I do wish to avoid blame. These statements can be simultaneously true: my motive was truly to avoid blame, but not to avoid attention. I do not mind attention, but I very much mind blame.

Now why would you say the opposite of something you said earlier in the game? I don't think this was a mistake. I think that you did not want to hammer your scum buddy and lied about the reasons surrounding his hammer to cover up.

This is not the opposite, then.

Good point on the appealing to authority tell. But I find it hard to pin it against him because I empathize with him.

A person can do both scummy and townie things separately.

Post 162 by Litral isn't good either. The mod explained that he was not going to be replaced because he picked up his prod. In fact he explained this twice. On top of that, it was thoroughly explained as to why he was scum lurking on not town, repeatedly. I don't buy this defense at all. He seems to be stretching a lot here. FoS: Litral.

Ah, when I posted that refusal to hammer, Vel hadn't written the fact that Mike was actively lurking.

Litral makes a false statement in post 167. Mislynchs, believe it or not, do help the town. It gives us plenty of information about players. Who pushed his wagon the most and who said what about who and gives us a lot of information to analysis, not to mention the night kill that goes with it. I'm not saying we should go out and mislynch people, but it's not as detrimental as you'd think. Specially now that we have 9 players in a newbie game.

When the only alternative of mislynches is good lynches, then mislynches are relatively detrimental. I'm saying we should try our very best never to mislynch anyone for any reason whatsoever. Mislynching cannot be an actual strategy used to find scum; in particular, the fact that someone is townie does not mean they were right.

Litral is very happy to help Muerrto lynch himself in post 172. I think this is more suspicious than Muerrto wanting to lynch him self.

Why?

Litral falls onto his terrible "I want a better game" defense in post 181. As I've explained previously, this doesn't give you an excuse, he was clearly scum. q21 also proved that your logic is flawed, because if you want an active game you get rid of the lurkers.

Your earlier post:

I don't like the circumstances surrounding the lynch. But was very surprised to find we hit scum!

This is a contradiction. Do you think he was clearly scum or not?

Getting rid of lurkers can be done by replacing. And that was what I wanted.

Post 253 by Litral is good to get people talking, but I really hate the idea of those lists. It pretty much gives scum their night kills because they provide scum with information about what players think about other players and it helps them set up WIFOM cases on people that some poor townsman might end up finding and end up knocking himself or his target or both out. In short, listing = bad.

I would like to say that listing people with numbers that clearly indicate who they thought was pro-town and anti-town is bad. I did no such thing; in fact, about 4 people in there have acted suspiciously to me (snafoo, SA, q21, Muerrto), so my post would not help scum to decide who to kill.

[Litral]

It's not that he's not posting. He was prodded for not posting and picked up his prod and said "I'm here" in response. He's paying attention to the game, therefore he does not get replaced. If a player chooses to lurk it's not the Mod's responsibility to deal with them. If he had not picked up his PM then he would have been replaced days ago. - Vel

If I had seen this I would definitely have hammered the lurkerscum. It was not until Night descended that I saw this; Vel wrote this a heck lot later.

[Litral]

Muerrto, when you decided that you wanted to be lynch as long as we'd lynch Litral the next day, Litral fully accepted it and even voted you to help it's progress.

After lots of pointless arguing, Litral does a complete 180 degree turn and does exactly the same as you do, even though he states he thinks it does not help town and is a reckless idea.

I fully disagree with a "lynch me" playstyle; I think it is detrimental to the town. My decision to vote myself was a complete gambit used to generate responses; it was totally fake and I do not at all agree with me lynching myself for any reason whatsoever. This is explained in a later post.

Good.

unvote

SA, unvote. I think that's all I need to see now. T'was a gambit and I think it failed, because I don't want to leave for 10 hours only to find myself lynched.

Let me explain myself. Voting oneself is in most cases not a good strategy. The only possible good that will come of it is time saved because you don't have to give any arguments, but then the town loses 2 people (most likely).

Let's see what one of us getting himself lynched will do: the other will be lynched. However, this is only good because if one of us believes the other to be so guilty that no other person is anywhere close. The only logical step is to give arguments, then; getting lynched only proves that one of us is a townie, it doesn't prove that one of us is right, or that the other must be scum.

Being lynched as a town doesn't prove you right in any way whatsoever, because townies don't have more information.

However. This situation is perfect for scum. The situation was that both of us will be lynched in Day 2 and Day 3 - a free ticket to the endgame for the scum if it's not either of us. This is very likely - I wouldn't put Muerrto's possibility of being scum above 25% (still high, but much lower than everyone else's combined). This situation is perfect for scum to take advantage of.

[Litral]

When you decided that you wanted to lynch yourself and then have Litral lynched, he should have realized this. He should have said the same thing you did and stopped suspecting you or at least have not suspected you as much, because if he is town and he thinks you are scum, there is no reason for you lynch yourself first because then you lose the game.

He did not realize that, instead he voted you. That is not something a townie would have done.

This is WIFOM at best. If someone says "you should all lynch me now", does this mean he is townie? It does not. It in fact worsens the image, because townies should never want to be lynched save for annoyance, but scum could use this as a ploy.

If I were scum I would also have motivation not to vote him. That's because voting him out would immediately make me Day 3's lynch, thus still losing the game (merely prolonging the process). I don't think I'd like that. But I really thought he was very scummy for adopting a "just lynch me" plan; thus I was calling his bluff.

[shaka!!]

Just wanted to reply to this before writing my next post and responding to everything else fully.

Litral falls onto his terrible "I want a better game" defense in post 181. As I've explained previously, this doesn't give you an excuse, he was clearly scum. q21 also proved that your logic is flawed, because if you want an active game you get rid of the lurkers.

Your earlier post:

I don't like the circumstances surrounding the lynch. But was very surprised to find we hit scum!

This is a contradiction. Do you think he was clearly scum or not?

It is not contrary. I didn't like the circumstances because I would have waited 'till Monday before voting or doing anything along the lines of that, as said by q21.

[Litral]

This is manipulation on purpose, something that makes no sense if he was town.

I ask that you justify this statement. I think you need to elaborate on me "misinterpreting people's arguments". I really don't see how, and as far as I know, you're just saying it.

Sorry for... what is it? Quadruple posting?

[shaka!!]

When you decided that you wanted to lynch yourself and then have Litral lynched, he should have realized this. He should have said the same thing you did and stopped suspecting you or at least have not suspected you as much, because if he is town and he thinks you are scum, there is no reason for you lynch yourself first because then you lose the game.

He did not realize that, instead he voted you. That is not something a townie would have done.

This is WIFOM at best. If someone says "you should all lynch me now", does this mean he is townie? It does not. It in fact worsens the image, because townies should never want to be lynched save for annoyance, but scum could use this as a ploy.

If I were scum I would also have motivation not to vote him. That's because voting him out would immediately make me Day 3's lynch, thus still losing the game (merely prolonging the process). I don't think I'd like that. But I really thought he was very scummy for adopting a "just lynch me" plan; thus I was calling his bluff.

I don't see any WIFOM.

If you say you were calling his bluff then I can say I am calling your bluff now. See how that logic works? That is more WIFOM than my post is.

[Litral]

Litral falls onto his terrible "I want a better game" defense in post 181. As I've explained previously, this doesn't give you an excuse, he was clearly scum. q21 also proved that your logic is flawed, because if you want an active game you get rid of the lurkers.

Your earlier post:

I don't like the circumstances surrounding the lynch. But was very surprised to find we hit scum!

This is a contradiction. Do you think he was clearly scum or not?

It is not contrary. I didn't like the circumstances because I would have waited 'till Monday before voting or doing anything along the lines of that, as said by q21.

It was Monday. Therefore you must've liked the circumstances surrounding the lynch.

[Litral]

When you decided that you wanted to lynch yourself and then have Litral lynched, he should have realized this. He should have said the same thing you did and stopped suspecting you or at least have not suspected you as much, because if he is town and he thinks you are scum, there is no reason for you lynch yourself first because then you lose the game.

He did not realize that, instead he voted you. That is not something a townie would have done.

This is WIFOM at best. If someone says "you should all lynch me now", does this mean he is townie? It does not. It in fact worsens the image, because townies should never want to be lynched save for annoyance, but scum could use this as a ploy.

If I were scum I would also have motivation not to vote him. That's because voting him out would immediately make me Day 3's lynch, thus still losing the game (merely prolonging the process). I don't think I'd like that. But I really thought he was very scummy for adopting a "just lynch me" plan; thus I was calling his bluff.

I don't see any WIFOM.

If you say you were calling his bluff then I can say I am calling your bluff now. See how that logic works? That is more WIFOM than my post is.
[/quote]

That is not what my logic at all. Allow me to elaborate once more.

WIFOM: It is WIFOM because it's circular. You're saying that "Muerrto is less suspicious because he wanted to get himself lynched; this would point to me", correct me if I'm wrong. So if person A were scum, person A would not say "please lynch me". But then person A may have thought of this, and he indeed was scum, because he predicted that when he said this you wouldn't vote him thinking he's town. See the WIFOM?

The bluff is that I believe he could've been using this statement as a bluff to generate towniness and to get votes off himself; people would think, "oh, scum would never say this thing, unvote", which would perfectly suit scum. That is the bluff I called.

What is my bluff? How am I using any bluff at all? I am explaining your suspicions; I am not using a ploy in order to get suspicion off me. Please explain what you mean by "calling my bluff".

[Litral]

Cursed tags!

When you decided that you wanted to lynch yourself and then have Litral lynched, he should have realized this. He should have said the same thing you did and stopped suspecting you or at least have not suspected you as much, because if he is town and he thinks you are scum, there is no reason for you lynch yourself first because then you lose the game.

He did not realize that, instead he voted you. That is not something a townie would have done.

This is WIFOM at best. If someone says "you should all lynch me now", does this mean he is townie? It does not. It in fact worsens the image, because townies should never want to be lynched save for annoyance, but scum could use this as a ploy.

If I were scum I would also have motivation not to vote him. That's because voting him out would immediately make me Day 3's lynch, thus still losing the game (merely prolonging the process). I don't think I'd like that. But I really thought he was very scummy for adopting a "just lynch me" plan; thus I was calling his bluff.

I don't see any WIFOM.

If you say you were calling his bluff then I can say I am calling your bluff now. See how that logic works? That is more WIFOM than my post is.

This is the correct post I am responding to.

[shaka!!]

When you decided that you wanted to lynch yourself and then have Litral lynched, he should have realized this. He should have said the same thing you did and stopped suspecting you or at least have not suspected you as much, because if he is town and he thinks you are scum, there is no reason for you lynch yourself first because then you lose the game.

He did not realize that, instead he voted you. That is not something a townie would have done.

This is WIFOM at best. If someone says "you should all lynch me now", does this mean he is townie? It does not. It in fact worsens the image, because townies should never want to be lynched save for annoyance, but scum could use this as a ploy.

If I were scum I would also have motivation not to vote him. That's because voting him out would immediately make me Day 3's lynch, thus still losing the game (merely prolonging the process). I don't think I'd like that. But I really thought he was very scummy for adopting a "just lynch me" plan; thus I was calling his bluff.

I don't see any WIFOM.

If you say you were calling his bluff then I can say I am calling your bluff now. See how that logic works? That is more WIFOM than my post is.

That is not what my logic at all. Allow me to elaborate once more.

WIFOM: It is WIFOM because it's circular. You're saying that "Muerrto is less suspicious because he wanted to get himself lynched; this would point to me", correct me if I'm wrong. So if person A were scum, person A would not say "please lynch me". But then person A may have thought of this, and he indeed was scum, because he predicted that when he said this you wouldn't vote him thinking he's town. See the WIFOM?

The bluff is that I believe he could've been using this statement as a bluff to generate towniness and to get votes off himself; people would think, "oh, scum would never say this thing, unvote", which would perfectly suit scum. That is the bluff I called.

What is my bluff? How am I using any bluff at all? I am explaining your suspicions; I am not using a ploy in order to get suspicion off me. Please explain what you mean by "calling my bluff".[/quote]

I'll start at the top. Firstly, I never said that was your logic, I was giving an example.

Second, it is not circular because I am not saying that Muerrto is less suspicious because he wanted to lynch himself. I said that you agreeing with him and voting him is more suspicion that him wanting lynch him self is suspicious.

Thirdly, your bluff would you as scum saying lynch me first then lynch Muerrto. And it would've been successful too, because you are both still alive and Muerrto is as suspicious of you anymore.

Before I reply to any more of your posts I am going to make that post I said I was going to make earlier with the rest of my suspicions. I'll then reply to everything in one go, hopefully it won't take that long because I have two other games to catch up in and I've spent almost 5 hours in this thread ):