Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[charter]

I really don't see a walnut/Riot link. Can you show me?

[Netlava]

Instead of putting just walnut on his list, Riot puts "walnut/bb." The inclusion of BB is strange because it goes against his "why on earth would we lynch BB" post. This move probably helps him retain extra flexibility to support his scumbuddy if BB were to come closer to getting lynched.

[ShadowGirl]

Ick. This game is at the top of my reread list, and I do realize I said I was going to post an analysis... yesterday or something.

I promise that something will come tommorow as I have a nice block of free time.

[camn]

Do you know if the mafia's kill would still go through on you? AKA a one for one trade? (not that I would mind that)

I got the feeling I would die... and they would die, too.

Which I am also fine with!
I just don't want OUR power roles to die!

I thought about breadcrumbing something to try and draw a mafia Roleblocker or something.. but it all sounded too complicated in my mind!

[Walnut]

I and a few others have noticed that you have made several posts discussing possible setups and roles. How are these helping us find scum right now on D1?

A few things to reply to here. One is that yes, I among several people who have made posts discussing possible setups and roles. Please note that I have not initiated these discussions, merely attempted to correct assumptions or clarify thinking.

In the same way that a shorter day favours the mafia over the town, so does narrow thinking. It's like saying "That guy has blood on his shirt- lynch him!" then it turns out he is the local butcher. It is not necessarily scummy thinking, just limited. Take the example of the SK speculation and this post from Macavenger:

What does assuming that we have an SK gain us? It shouldn't matter much for Day 1, and should be pretty obvious based on the night kill(s) by Day 2.

Camn has just proved that I was right and was helping the town by explaining the possibility of multiple night kills not being evidence of a serial killer. Sorry if I am boring everyone by using the same example, but people keep asking similar questions

@Tinsley: I still can't think of a possible scenario in which on Day 1 with no Night 1 BB could have had a role-based reason for suspecting certain players. I can see that knowing your own role is justification for guessing certain other roles are present, but not for being able to suspect particular people off the bat.

[charter]

BB kind of ruined that with his kick ass role claim too.

[Walnut]

BTW, happy scumday Charter!

(And yes, that is a contentless post that will not help find the mafia today. That said, I have had a prolific weekend, and should let a few other people get a word in too )

[charter]

Thanks

[Mizzy]

Vote Count:

Walnut 4 (Hadhfang, charter, Macavenger, Netlava)
Netlava 3 (CF Riot, Lord Gurgi, Battousai)
charter 2 (farside22, ShadowGirl)
camn 1 (charter)

Not Voting:

Walnut, camn

12 alive = 7 to lynch!

[CF Riot]

First of all, I (for now) believe Camn's claim. Seeing how much attention BB drew to himself/Camn before he left, and because Had's claimed cop, I think it was a good idea to share it. The probability that Had would've killed himself that way was high, and though getting a mafia that way would've been better, having an unkillable semi-confirmed townie is very strong too.

Mac those are some pretty weak reasons to suspect me. You say "[Battousai's] vote on farside in post 37 still strikes me as a bit off." Then you say "Riot in post 48 makes an odd assertion about Battousai being shifty in his reaction after the farside thing."

You

have a problem with it too, so why was it odd for

me

to point it out back then? For the question he asked, we had a lot of trouble the first time the game started with people answering questions for each other, and Charter was wrong about my question being loaded then too, so I didn't want that all over again. I still stick to what I said in that post too, the question was not loaded, and it was scummy for Netlava to out someone he thought was Doc.

Netlava, BB shared the 3-spot on my list because he deserved to be there. A claim for no reason and admitting to try to draw votes was scummy action. I didn't want to keep BB around because I thought he was town, I wanted to keep him around because he had claimed something that could possibly be proven. I also said we shouldn't lynch Hadhfang since he claimed cop, but he was on that list too because, like BB, he was scummy. I wasn't actually defending either of these players, I was merely saying they should be put on hold until D2 because they were more provable than anyone else. I put Walnut in the tie spot because at that point, he wasn't as suspicious as you or Hadhfang, but I did suspect him. A three person list with two people I wouldn't vote for would be weak but I didn't want to let BB off the hook.

If it is any indication of what ties you

think

I have to Walnut, I have no problems with him being in the spotlight right now. Since I'm taking out Camn and Had because of their claims, Walnut is actually my #2 suspect ATM, and I feel like he's been more suspicious since the time I first put him on my list. The only thing actually keeping me from voting him is I still think YOU are scum. I find it very convenient that when I'm pressuring you and there is little suspicion of myself I disappear from you LoS (#1 to

GONE

with very weak reasons), but as soon as you see possible support from another player I come back from off the list to #2.

Time to make a new LoS now to reflect what's happened.

--BB's actions put him on my list in the first place, but since Camn has come in she hasn't done anything scummy and she has a real claim as opposed to BB's soft claim, one that I believe. Camn gets removed.

--Hadhfang's early game actions still reek of scum, and while he's seemed less scummy lately, he isn't really cleared yet either. He's pretty much at the same spot as my last list in that I'm waiting for tomorrow to make any real decision on him.

--My case against Netlava stands. People have said he seems less scummy lately, but I refuse to let him go just because

after

the town lays out all the reasons he is suspect he starts to fall in line. I don't think his defense has stood up to my accusations, and the way he changes his LoS to best benefit himself should be an obvious sign of lynching anyone so long as it keeps him alive.

--Charter gets the now open spot on my list because of his contradictions and because of his obvious pairing with Netlava. [NOTE: I didn't say obvious

scum

-pairing, because neither are proven scum yet.] Charter has recently offered to be less biased toward him, but never delivered. Since Netlava is so high on my list, it

really

rubs me the wrong way for Charter to just leave him out. The way Netlava voted for Charter early on without ever really questioning him also seems like Netlava never really suspected Charter, but was using his vote as a cover for their pairing and to make his deliberate attack against me seem less tunnel-visioned. Charter is also leading the new wagon against Walnut when Netlava was receiving the most attention, a wagon Netlava is now on.

--Walnut's role speculation hasn't bothered me as much as some people. The thing I suspect him for first and foremost is how noncommittal he is. The only real vote he's put in was on Hadhfang which made him 2 votes from gone. Everything after that has been very middle of the road with post like "I would be

ok

with voting Blackberry"(137), ranking BB as a 6 when questioned by Netlava(145), and his posting and reposting of 218. He questions Batt for a while at one point in the game, but no FoS or vote.

The other thing I'm rolling around in my head now, and this I'm not too sure of, is if Walnut could be some kind of rival role of Camn. This could be one reason for all the role speculation at the beginning of the game. As soon as BB made his weird claim, Walnut jumped right in suggesting his lynch. (He was still being his noncommittal self, so no actual vote ever went through.) This is where he made his first inconsistency, first wanting to lynch BB because he wasn't committed to the game, then later changing his reason to the claim appearing scummy to him. Later after Camn replaces in and Tinsley wants to follow up on BB's pre-replacement suspects, Walnut is totally against the question. He takes the stance of saying nothing in the role PM could implicate another player D1, which isn't necessarily true given all the posting about that role. Then once Camn offers to reveal her role, Walnut speaks up against it, possibly because he already knows some or all of what her role is and doesn't want the rest of the town to find out. I know we all wrote off BB's posting as erratic, but maybe he picked up on how Walnut responded to his claim and that's why he said Walnut was scum before he left.

That is all a very circumstantial, and I don't have many actual facts to support it. It makes sense in my head though, and even if it's wrong, there are enough other, stronger reasons to suspect Walnut.

The New LoS:

#1) Netlava
#2) Walnut
#3) Charter
----
**) Hadhfang - Wild card pending D2.

[ShadowGirl]

I'm so sorry for not posting in the longest times. I guarantee that I'll be posting more.

@Had's claim: At this point I'm not sure whether to believe it or not, but at the moment we have no way of proving or disproving it - he shouldn't be the lynch today.

Don't lynch him today and if he lives through the night lynch him tomorrow. Of course the mafia could always not NK him, but I see that as much more unlikely than him actually being mafia (if he lives). Saying this, there's no point in lynching him today, as there are probably two others, so I'll go ahead and

Seems like you're lining up a lynch. Poor Had, if he's not NKed you're going to lynch him.

we should lynch somoene else and see what happens. Come D2 if Had is still alive he can tell us who he investigated and the result. Then we can decide on whether or not to lynch him or somoene else.

Lynching someone just to see what happens doesn't seem like a good plan just so we can speed it up and go to day two.

FYI, I was lurking on purpose to see who would say something and when.

Lurking on purpose doesn't help town.

Like anyone's going to get convinced by that Rolling Eyes It is a link, but since baddies benefit from pinning down townies to themselves, I would think that if CF Riot flipped scum, it would reflect better on had.

I would say it's a null tell, really.

I think it's better if we save BB's role speculation for scum. I have an inkling what his role is, but I'm not going to reveal it.

What did you think that BB's role was at this point?

At the moment I think Charter is scummy, since he seems to be directing a lot of hs effort to get peopel to vote me, Admittedly that in itself ould just be very agressive play, but then he says my claim was

He's solely scummy because he's trying to get people to vote for you?

BB: Doesn't give this game much effort (reasonable as asked to be replaced), claims a great role out of the blue, and tells people who he feels is scummy, but doesn't give much of a reason why.

Well, you've already given the reason as why he hasn't given us any evidence along with the people he felt scummy - he was uninterested. As much I and everyone would have liked to have some insight on it.

Tinsley: This is more gut than anything. He defends CF Riot, saying he is most likely town because he wrote a big post. Scum writes big posts too.

So does town.

The game was Akatsuki Mafia in Coney Island. Scum tried this tactic, but I thought I would try it myself to see if it has any value.

Trying out tactics just seems to be an excuse for lurking.

That LG tries to disguise the attack as something else is what's scummy, not the attack itself.

How is giving you a chance to respond an attack?

Battousai wrote:
Agreeing with you shouldn't be scummy, so it must be the attack on you and if that's the case, I see it as OMGUS.

Not really in favour of one emoticon being a response. A few words of courtesy would be nice.

Was away, don't have much time now, but I'll address this now.

@SG, were you even in the last game? References to it completely flew over your head, I don't know why you'd point them out and put trivial comments on them.

I'm going to do a reread when I get back from this weekend with my current thoughts, I'll be

V/LA

until monday probably.

Yes... I was in the last game.

Can you elaborate on these 'references'?

The whole BB is odd... There were two or three obvious ones that weren't serious you quoted in your post and treated them as serious.


@Had, I'll get to your post later tonight/tomorrow.

I have the tendancy to take everything in mafia as serious. -_-

- Mac says accusation of LG was omgus and votes me for it
- Mac says I think LG is scum
Anyone notice the inconsistency here?

Mac says that you're making up tells to justify your vote.
I don't see an inconsistency.

Macavenger:
- Major shift in playstyle

Do you mean in this game or opposed to other ones?

Mac later explains that this is because it's common to assume the person is town. I assume people are town in general, yes, but not when it directly conflicts with my accusations.

I thought about breadcrumbing something to try and draw a mafia Roleblocker or something.. but it all sounded too complicated in my mind!

Hm? But wouldn't that kill the Roleblocker?

[charter]

SG, do you have any actual thoughts on anyone? Suspicions on anyone? That last giant post, while appreciated, didn't actually say anything.

@Riot, I'm working on my Netlava reread.

[Hadhfang]

Okay, sorry for the absence, I’ve read up to page 11, and here are my thoughts on the game so far. I’ll read some more ASAP.

Charter: reads as aggressive townie to me,

Shadowgirl

I don't think it's any good to try speculate about SK until N1. Figuring out how many scum there are is a bit more productive, as it has sparked conversation.

Anyway, I would think that there's either three scum or two scum and a SK. We've seen from what last game that the roles can get pretty interesting.

How can you say it's not good to speculate and then speculate?

My wording didn't come out right. 'Not good' in the sense that for the moment it doesn't help us much.

Your still speculating though.

You also need to post more, at the moment I have no real reading on you.

CF Riot

Oh jeez. I really hate to pull a "yeah what he said" but Mac read my post exactly the way I meant it. I should've quoted you or something Tinsley but I assumed people would know why I mentioned Had for my stat.

Intriguing that you say this after someone else said it rather than saying you meant it partly in a joke way beforehand

@ LG: I think Had's quick claim is

very

questionable, but I don't think there's anything we can do about it. A suspicious claim is a claim nonetheless, and being D1 with all of our people still alive, I think it's worth it to feel it out. That is if we can come up with a way to do it. My only problem with this is if Had claims a result tomorrow what do we compare it against? If it's all going to be WIFOM city, how do we deal with it

If my claim is so questionable why not question me on it? Why not vote me or press for information?
Post 139 doesn’t sit well with me either, You say your waiting on my claim, yet you’ve already said that there’s nothing we can do about that. There are no actual votes on BB that are serious, but you seem quick off the mark to defend him.

Here you're saying the claim didn't bother you much and don't mention anything about the timing either. Yet you were still having negative feelings towards BB because you don't like his level of commitment to the game, enough so that you propose lynching him anyways.

This is exactly what he’s saying. You’re simply repeating him here , which serves no purpose

Post 173:
Net hasn’t got a case of tunnel vision, he’s focused on several people rather than just one.

You also seem reluctant to vote people, I believe you were a bit like this in the last game, so that may just be your play style.

Batt 202: I was bothered by the fact that you were intentionally lurking at first too. Seeing how things have played out since then I can't see scum motive for it so it doesn't really bother me anymore. But I will say if you are town, don't try scum tactics to help town. That just doesn't make sense, and its likely to get you lynched.

Could this be a warning to Bat that his actions will get him lynched because he’s riot’s scumbuddy? You don’t seem to want to take a definite stance on him, though again that could be your cautious playstyle

At the moment I think you’re scum, possibly with Battousai


Walnut

It seems to me like there are a lot of possibilities listed there. We had a sibling or lover pair in the last game, which has a town/pair and mafia/pair alleigance. In the same game I was a weak doctor, which means that if I had protected a mafia member I would have died. Assuming the mod's description of deaths did not make it obvious and people did not look up the role, most players would have assumed a certain number of mafia and an SK. Similarly, if an insane doctor "protects" someone they have a 50/50 chance of killing them instead, in which case the dead player's role would reveal nothing about why they died, and increase the likelihood that people would expect there was a serial killer.

Yet more speculation after we’ve tried to move away from that, doesn’t post any content until CF asks him to in post 80. Having said that, post 128 seems pretty pro-town to me, So I’m leaning toward pro-town.

Farsight22: pro-town, as far as I can see

Battousai:
Post 102:

FYI, I was lurking on purpose to see who would say something and when. My last post was on Sunday night. Here was the order of everyone who wanted me to talk:
Tinsley- he had a question that I hadn't answered, call me and blackberry (who posted the day before) out for not hearing much from them and unvotes had when Had got to L-2; CF Riot- wanted me to speak up and clear my name (for what? My first post where I random voted Farside using some information I gathered from the previous post?), SFOS's Had and tries to figure out how to prove a cop claim.

Here your just telling us you were lurking and what happened whilst you did this, but we can all see what happened whilst you weren’t speaking.

Nope, tomorrow will be completely WIFOM if we let Had live, and scum will play it up no doubt.

Here’s suggesting you want me lynched, but the previous post by you says you think we should leave me till day 2.
I think your scum, possibly with CF Riot

Tinsley:

That's interesting, because CF Riot's misleading stat should reflect badly on CF Riot and not had.

It would if CF Riot turned up scum. It would look like he was trying to convince everyone that Had isn't scum.

Anyone’s posts that are considered questionable would reflect badly on someone when they turn up scum. Here you seem to be avoiding the question.
Strikes me as more pro-town than anything else

Macavenger:
Seems to be pro-town to me

Netlava:
Post 133 doesn’t sit well with me, You already said

Well, I think the standard procedure is to leave had alive and watch him closely

Now you want to lynch me.

Other than that, I think you seem pro-town as well

Lord Gurgi: seems to be quite sheepey to me. Leaning more toward a scum reading on him than town. I’d like to hear his readings on everyone.



Camm:

Post 216:
Reads to me as if she believes she’s town. Having said that when I played scum last game I tried to get into the role of a townie, but I don’t think that’s a big enough thing to call her on. However, she does then make a reference to all the CF riot hate, and CF did defend Camm’s predecessor BB, Possible scumbuddies perhaps?


Currently I think that Bat and Riot are scum,and no definite third scum member.

Unvote, Vote: CF Riot

[ShadowGirl]

SG, do you have any actual thoughts on anyone? Suspicions on anyone? That last giant post, while appreciated, didn't actually say anything.

@Riot, I'm working on my Netlava reread.

Yes, another post will be coming - I wanted to post that so I could focus my thoughts.

[Lord Gurgi]

I will post a super read as quickly as possible. Just letting you guys know.

[CF Riot]

Hm? But wouldn't that kill the Roleblocker?

Yes, that's the point. The

mafia

roleblocker would be tempted to block Camn, then end up dead. What didn't you get?

Hadh, I think you may have been skimming and misunderstood the context of some of these posts. Some of them, I don't know what you were thinking.

You're implying suspicion of my stat way back at the beginning of the game because I didn't explain why it only targeted you. This doesn't make sense because if you are mafia, there's no reason to bring this up, as it implicates you. If you are town, you know there is no way we could be scum partners because you're not scum. That was the basis for people questioning my stat, so I don't see how you of all people find it suspicious.

There's no pressing reason to question you about your claim today as it could very well clear you tomorrow, and I already said you should make it to day two so voting you would be like an empty threat since you know I want you alive. I also said I wasn't defending BB, just pointing out he should be left to D2 to prove his claim (like you).

The purpose of me pointing out Walnut's actions was I found them scummy and wanted people to see why they were. That is presenting evidence.

I think Netlava very much had tunnel vision on me at that point. He would make short comments about other people, but no real accusations or questions to them. 90% of his focus was me.

Nothing has given me a reason to take a stance on Batt, but I think I've made it clear a few of his actions early on were slightly scummy, but overall not enough to make me suspect him above others.


I really don't get your case on me. My motives seem near obvious in most of the cases you give.

[ShadowGirl]

Hm? But wouldn't that kill the Roleblocker?

Yes, that's the point. The

mafia

roleblocker would be tempted to block Camn, then end up dead. What didn't you get?

Sorry, I read that post wrong - as if a roleblock would have negated her ability.

[Lord Gurgi]

Camn (Blackberry)

Post 88:

To me, this breadcrumbing, in light of camn’s recent post was likely him trying to draw a scum kill. I think this is actually assuming camn’s claim to be true, a very pro-town play.

Post 183:

Maybe it’s me, but ShadowGirl, especially up to this point, was the town lurker, not Battousai. I also don’t like how she says that pointing out breadcrumbs is town, it’s not.

Post 216:

I don’t like how she suggests tunnel-vision as a strategy, but it seems more her play style, as she’s always suggested doing things m to me.

Post 195:

The reason I tried to give you a chance, is that I don’t like to vote hearing only one side of the argument. And no, I haven’t read the last game, by the time of the first page people were already making references as well as carrying on with, ‘Well last game he did and he was town so we can’t lynch him for being scummy.’ This is some of the worst scum hunting I’ve ever seen!

Post 209:

Pro-tip, don’t prevent the people you think are scum from talking. This is where Netlava seems to use the same logic I used against him on Macavenger.

Post 212:

Netlava how in the seven heavens, is it possible to attack you by giving you a chance?

Post 225:

Let me get this straight, you won’t disprove the theory, because it’s not a theory because I made it? Do you not defend yourself because you can’t do it logically, or is this some kind of beyond stupid town play?

Post 232:

Once again, I’m scum because I’m playing scummy because I’m town? Maybe? This is the point where all of Netlava’s reasoning is gone. What little there was to begin with.

Post 244:

Okay, now you’ve totally lost me, you comment on CF Riot, not on Walnut, and somehow this moves Walnut up? Also where you ask for explanations, I don’t think it’s them that needs to explain, you have been claiming CF Riot is scum since page 2. Further, you’ve never even spelled out how I am scum aside from one single post. Care to find some other evidence?

Post 255:

You failed to say why he is scummy, just that he is, as is the case with every other person on your list. Also, you still haven’t defended yourself, could you kindly do that now?

Post 258:

No, scum have worse reasons, because they know their reasons are manufactured. That is the worst defense I have ever seen, you cannot be proved town because you are on all the popular wagons, this is traditionally a scum tell, in fact. You gave three reasons that I am scum, three; one post, asking for an actual defense from you, which this is not, the SK discussion, which I have since explained, and for not pushing a bandwagon. As far as I can tell, your idea of townie play is jumping on bandwagons, voting before defense, and pushing a wagon to the gates of Hell before you check who’s on it and why. Not only this but you deny that you thought my post was an attack, when you have called it a ‘thinly veiled attack’ explanation please?

Post 297:

So, please clarify, Mac accused someone on your list, therefore not scum? Why are you voting for your number three suspect and not your number one?

farside22

Post 162:

I don’t like how she completely avoids the whole Apple discussion.

Battousai

Post 102:

I don’t like how he also tries to set up a lynch, the cop claim day one is nothing but wine, but nonetheless, I don’t like it.

Post 150:

Unlike the general opinion, I thought that this was Battousai trying to make Netlava see that he is proposing a lynch of someone on the basis of them eating an apple.

charter

Post 21 & 22:

Self Contradiction, another dead horse, but I don’t like contradiction, and I think it is one of the most reliable scum tells.

Post 82:

I find this almost funny, charter voted hadhfang, in anticipation of his defense. And nobody cares, and yet (yes I am bringing this up again) when I wait for Netlava to defend himself it’s a scum tell.

Post 98:

I really don’t like this post. He thought he had five votes on him; also I do not like the ellipses as an argument tool. It just always reads scum to me, because it seems like he wants you to draw your own conclusions so he doesn’t have to.

Post 101:

Setting up a lynch is scum. Voting for role envy is Scum or idiot.

Post 117:

It seems pretty obvious to me that discounting everything as WIFOM is a pretty scum move.

Post 156:

I can’t stand this sort of thing. You are directly standing in the way of questioning Netlava, I don’t care about you saying he’s free to answer it, anything useful that could have been gained from his response is now worthless because he can stand behind your statement. Yes, I do think that you are defending him.

Tinsley

Post 61:

Seems unwilling to vote.

Post 179:

Seems to suggest that Netlava is unlynchable, this is bad, and nobody is unlynchable.

Macavenger

Post 204:

This is the first post I have real problems with from him. He is attacking Battousai for lurking when, once again, our town lurker is ShadowGirl. Also his vote for Netlava is because Netlava thinks Macavenger is scum for Macavenger thinking that Netlava is scum. Seems like distancing to me.

Post 210:

I don’t like how he defends me here, which shuts down my defense to ‘I agree with Macavenger.’

Walnut

Post 92:

Puts hadhfang at L-2 with very little explanation. I don’t like how he doesn’t seem to be aware that his vote is L-2, or possibly ignoring it.

Hadhfang

Post 66:

I don’t see the real problem with this post, he was trying to put everything into perspective, as far as I can see.

Post 96:

The claim, oh the claim, I don’t like how he does it, as it seems like an afterthought on his part, but nonetheless lynching a claimed cop day one is not wise.

CF Riot

Post 19:

Don’t like the misleading statistic, this horse has been beaten to death already, but it gives off a weird feeling.

Post 71:

I know other people thought it was a breadcrumb or something, I think it’s just a garbage post.

Post 99:

I don’t like how you ended this, you shouldn’t have to wait for the town to comment to come to a decision about how you feel, that just rings scum to me.

ShadowGirl

Post 151:

A one line post comes after apologising for not posting much, it sounds like intentional lurking to me.

Post 194:

Her first real post, not much actual content, despite everything, saying a lot of what other people have already said.

Questions:
@Netlava, could you explain 59? Why did you already have suspicions for CF Riot?
@Netlava, is post 82 also scummy? Is it more scummy than what I did?

Scumlist of fantastic-ness.
1. Netlava (if it isn't obvious why I think this yet, then I don't know what to do)
2. charter: He has been using WIFOM a lot, setting up things for tomorrow, plenty of hypocrisy also.
3. Macavenger: Yes, for those of you going *gasp* I don't trust his constant defense of me, also he had a relatively short lived time on Netlava's list. I'd also like your opinion of this Macavenger.

Considering other players:
Camn's claim is very clever if she's scum, we're too afraid to lynch her and she has a reason why she isn't NK'd. With all this extra information I don't feel out of place to ask for a role name.
Farside always seems town to me, I'd like to know how she does it, I'd also like a general list from her also. It seems like she hasn't taken much of a stand in this game, which makes me think she might just be anti-town.
Walnut doesn't give much content as a chronic condition. I don't think it's particularly pro- or anti-town behaviour however.
ShadowGirl has been lurking the whole game, I understand her position, but I would like more actual content from her than small one liners and the rare massive post.
Hadhfang is one of the few I think is town. He continued to bring up his bandwagon and the reasons for it even after it had passed.
CF Riot is particularly town to me because he tends to make a lot of logical sense, but at the same time seems very careful not to brush people the wrong way.

[Lord Gurgi]

EBWOP: It seems Netlava's name got lost in pasting from word somehow. It should be there before 195 under Camn's name.
To clarify, this is looking at things I find scummy, or otherwise important. Not necessarily an indication of who is most scummy by number of posts mentioned.

[ShadowGirl]

Why is my name mentioned for post 183? That's not my post.

Also, I haven't been intentionally lurking - I don't see how one line makes it seem like it is?

I understand the frustrations everyone has with me - but I will be posting more now that I have more time on my hands.

[Lord Gurgi]

Shadowgirl, that got screwed up somehow, I think that something was lost when I pasted from word.

[Netlava]

I'm not sure why it's bad to bring up the SK first, and not bad to bring up the size of the mafia first. Could someone explain it to me?

You said that it was better to play it conservative and assume there are 3 mafia + 1 SK. What are the advantages of doing so?

...Walnut could be some kind of rival role of Camn...

Walnut, what do you think of this?

@ Shadowgirl: I explained a lot of stuff in earlier posts. Should help answer your questions.

I think Netlava very much had tunnel vision on me at that point. He would make short comments about other people, but no real accusations or questions to them. 90% of his focus was me.

Why is this bad again?

Post 212: Netlava how in the seven heavens, is it possible to attack you by giving you a chance?

Explained earlier. Repeatedly.

Post 225: Let me get this straight, you won’t disprove the theory, because it’s not a theory because I made it? Do you not defend yourself because you can’t do it logically, or is this some kind of beyond stupid town play?

It's not a legitimate theory - simple as that. CF Riot, do you think LG's theory has any merit? Interestingly, riot did not comment...

Post 232: Once again, I’m scum because I’m playing scummy because I’m town? Maybe? This is the point where all of Netlava’s reasoning is gone. What little there was to begin with.

Uh, I showed my reasoning behind this earlier. This thread is 13 pages long, you know.

Post 244: Okay, now you’ve totally lost me, you comment on CF Riot, not on Walnut, and somehow this moves Walnut up? Also where you ask for explanations, I don’t think it’s them that needs to explain, you have been claiming CF Riot is scum since page 2. Further, you’ve never even spelled out how I am scum aside from one single post. Care to find some other evidence?

I never claimed anyone is scum on page 2. And the evidence against you is plenty.

Post 297: So, please clarify, Mac accused someone on your list, therefore not scum? Why are you voting for your number three suspect and not your number one?

I don't think he would pause just to bus his scum buddy. And I would vote for you if there were a wagon on you.

3. Macavenger: Yes, for those of you going *gasp* I don't trust his constant defense of me, also he had a relatively short lived time on Netlava's list. I'd also like your opinion of this Macavenger.

Now you point this out? I didn't think Mac was being objective and it seemed like he shrugged off the LG case without any thought just so he could use it as fodder for OMGUS and "weak" blanket labels.

[farside22]

I will say the only thing I can about this game and I am having trouble keeping up. I'm trying not to get replaced because it not anyone's fault but my own. Every time I try to get to reading this game my mind gets side tracked. I will do my best to read through this Monday when I am board at work.
Thanks for your understanding.

[Macavenger]

Walnut, you keep raising small points about individual posts in defense, but it's not an isolated problem. Your entire posting pattern this game has been basically worthless. Looking at your early posts:

• confirm
  
• random joke about last game
  
• pointless discussion about whether theory discussion is scummy, along with talk about last game's setup
  
• link may have been mildly useful for ShadowGirl's longterm mafia education, but didn't advance this game at all
  
• More random setup speculation that goes nowhere
  
• Echoes my opinion on hadhfang being suspicious, adds nothing
  
• Encourages blackberry to replace out
  
• Bandwagon jump ahoy! hadhfang to L-2. You've still basically said nothing about
  this
  game by now, and you vote to put someone on L-2.
  
• Sort of contributes opinions on Netlava and Battousai, but is mostly just WIFOM
  
• And now we suspect both claimed or semi-claimed roles, blackberry for no real reason I can see other than his claim (didn't you say you read mini 578? You should know that's pretty sketchy after reading that...) This is the first time you've taken your own, original stance on something all game, midway through page 6
  
• speculating on berry's role, and defending against questions raised by Riot and I
  
• waffly on berry's claim
  
• hey, contributes an idea about blackberry!
  
• useless theory discussion about prods, lurking and replacement
  
• excited that berry replaced, little talk about last game, nothing really about this one

Ok I'm going to quit here, because we're up to page 8 now, and I think I've made my point - you posted a lot in the early pages, but basically contributed nothing of any substance to this particular game, while hopping on a bandwagon and encouraging people to speculate on and/or lynch claimed power roles. This is worse than lurking, it's active lurking, with a bit of bandwagon jumping and possible fishing thrown in for good measure.

Past this point you start to sort of contribute a little bit more - though with 8 pages of material to draw on, it'd be hard not to. A lot of mini games have a lynch by the point you start giving any substance. Despite starting to trend towards being a little more useful, you've still never really taken a very firm stance on anything - you talk about theory, you waffle about claims, you waffle about joing netlava's wagon. You're not really doing any of your own scumhunting, just talking about other peoples', which is a huge red flag. Not all of your posts are necessarily bad, per se, but taken as a whole it's an extremely scummy pattern.

Look.. I'll just come out with it.

I will kill anyone who targets me in the night.

So, you're a PGO? Interesting, never actually played in a game with one. I think you really would have been better off not claiming, especially with Blackberry's little psuedo claim, you were a good night target for the scum, and the basic idea for a PGO is to try to draw a nightkill, so they can take a scum out with them. I actually had berry pegged as a vanilla just trying to screw with the scum's minds, but this seems quite reasonable.

Although...

I thought about breadcrumbing something to try and draw a mafia Roleblocker or something..

How do you know there's a Mafia Roleblocker?

Instead of putting just walnut on his list, Riot puts "walnut/bb." The inclusion of BB is strange because it goes against his "why on earth would we lynch BB" post. This move probably helps him retain extra flexibility to support his scumbuddy if BB were to come closer to getting lynched.

Not seeing how this is a Walnut/Riot link. It's possible you're correct that Riot is trying to keep his options flexible there, but I'd consider this (like most things you bring up) a pretty minor point at best.

You say "[Battousai's] vote on farside in post 37 still strikes me as a bit off." Then you say "Riot in post 48 makes an odd assertion about Battousai being shifty in his reaction after the farside thing." You have a problem with it too, so why was it odd for me to point it out back then?

You didn't call him out for being shifty for that question though, it was something he said after that. There's also the fact that something that "seems off" to me isnt' really worth building a case on by itself, only when it ties into other things does a random feeling like that become useful, in my opinion. You seemed to make a large deal of it and continue leaning on that one point excessively hard for a huge length of time.

My case against you is far from rock solid, I agree, but you're around the 3 or 4 slot on Day 1; that doesn't take a whole lot. I'm not in favor of lynching you currently, but I'm not comfortable with a wagon you and Battousai are both pushing right now based on the possible connections I see there.

He is attacking Battousai for lurking when, once again, our town lurker is ShadowGirl.

There are differences. Battousai admitted to lurking deliberately as a strategy, and further as a strategy he had seen used by scum elsewhere. This is all kinds of bad for a townie to be doing. In that specific post, I was attacking those aspects more than the lurking itself.

I've mentioned ShadowGirl's lurking since then. She looks more like a case of legitimately not having time to me, especially if she's replacing out of other games. While I still don't like it, it makes it far less indicative of alignment, under the circumstances.

Also his vote for Netlava is because Netlava thinks Macavenger is scum for Macavenger thinking that Netlava is scum. Seems like distancing to me.

Voting him for OMGUSing me when I've been suspicious of him for a while is distancing? I think you're either reaching or jumping at shadows, here.

I don’t like how he defends me here, which shuts down my defense to ‘I agree with Macavenger.’

All I did was point out that his case against you basically boiled down to OMGUS. What do you want me to do, ignore it when people make blatantly terrible cases? As far as I can tell there's no legitimate case against you that's been raised so far other than the talking about SKs thing, which is so minor at this point it's not even really worth talking about.

Yes, for those of you going *gasp* I don't trust his constant defense of me, also he had a relatively short lived time on Netlava's list. I'd also like your opinion of this Macavenger.

Not really aware of how I've been defending you "constantly," I guess Netlava jsut keeps making baseless cases on you if that's the case. I see no particular reason to suspect you at the moment.

As for Netlava's lists, unless he's scum hopping cases around trying to figure out who he can lynch, I have no clue what he's doing.

[Netlava]

A few things that I skipped over...

Questions:
@Netlava, could you explain 59? Why did you already have suspicions for CF Riot?
@Netlava, is post 82 also scummy? Is it more scummy than what I did?

59 = his misleading stat
82 = looks ok, not as scummy as what you did

Post 258: No, scum have worse reasons, because they know their reasons are manufactured.

Scum's top priority is to play for appearances, so they choose the wagon and fabricated reasons that look best on paper.

Not seeing how this is a Walnut/Riot link. It's possible you're correct that Riot is trying to keep his options flexible there, but I'd consider this (like most things you bring up) a pretty minor point at best.

How is this minor? Riot was very emphatic about not lynching BB; now he admits BB's actions were still scummy.