Newbie 694 (over)

[GIEFF]

/confirm

[GIEFF]

California

[GIEFF]

I refuse to participate in these senseless acts of accusation. Can't we all just get along?

[GIEFF]

Acts of violence are OK, just not senseless ones.

[GIEFF]

Vote: Gieff

because he doesn't like random voting! Obviously he's Scum!

Aha! Your vote is not random either - you gave a reason! Busted.

[GIEFF]

Yeah, I didn't respond to Xtoxm because I knew that he was obviously joking, too.


But seriously, I'm not voing to random vote because I don't think it's necessary. Groupthink is dangerous in this game; you can't allow your thoughts to be steered by others, because some of the others are bad guys trying to manipulate you.

The way to win is with logic, not emotion, and random voting seems like more of the latter than the former.

[GIEFF]

My point about logic was this:

The mafia knows exactly who is town and who isn't, and so don't NEED to use logic - their votes are based on their knowledge of who the other team is.

The town DOES need to use logic, though - they don't have the information the mafia does. If someone cannot explain the logic behind a vote, then that person is likely to be mafia.


In what way is emotion useful, Xtoxm?

[GIEFF]

Are the ranks under our handles based solely on post count? Or do the number of games played or won have an affect also?

And regarding our ealier discussion - no, the mafia do NOT use logic when deciding who is town and who is mafia. The mafia are already 100% sure of who the town and scum are. As you said, the "logic" they use is false logic; they make their decision and then try to cover it up with logic. It seems to me the best way to uncover scum is to find faulty logic.

The "emotion" aspect may comes with experience, but it isn't something I can rely on right now.

[GIEFF]

Lets say there i'm a watcher, ok?
Now, I know u targeted the guy that died last night, ok?
So I claim cop and say that I have a guilty on u, and ask u to claim.
if u claim miller, then I'll know your scum because miller doesn't target, if u say I can't be cop because ur not scum(ur vig or cop or something), then I'll know u may be telling the truth.

now, after that happens, if u claim miller, and I claim watcher and tell everyone that I just wanted to check if u r scum or vig.

after that happens, a guy with a Lync all Liars policy would lynch me next day(this day lynch the scum) just because I lied...

get it?

There is no watcher in this setup. Let's try to keep the theoretical discussions relevant to the game ahead of us. I don't see where a similar incentive to lie would happen in this game; a townie claiming a power role risks outing that power role, and should not be done. Power roles should of course claim vanilla town if pressed, but this is not really a lie so much as sound strategy, and there isn't really any way for this "lie" to be caught in the setup we are using.

So uri, do you agree that in the current setup someone caught in a lie is very likely to be scum?


Regarding the lurker-lynching: I do agree that it is better than a completely random lynch, but hopefully we can find a better lynch by getting a mafia member to slip up.

[GIEFF]

I thought the below might be useful - it is a history of votes and FoS's with hyperlinks to the relevant posts. I can continue to do this throughout the thread if you find it helpful.

infamousace2

FoS: ClockworkRuse Post 22
Vote: Xtoxm Post 32

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm Post 26
Unvote, Vote: militant Post 95
FOS: ClockworkRuse Post 110

militant

Vote: GIEFF Post 28

urielzyx

VOTE: Elannaro Post 30
Unvote Post 57
Vote: infamousace2 Post 121

RealityFan

Vote: Gieff Post 43

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 82
Unvote, Vote hambargarz Post 96

Xtoxm

Vote Militant Post 88




infamous, militant, and RealityFan all still have their random votes "on;" infamous for Xtxom, and the other two for me. Is it customary to simply unvote after the random voting stage has passed, or to leave the vote on the random target until a better target presents itself?

And infamous, I am curious to hear your answer to Xtoxm's question in #129.

[GIEFF]

How much info can you really get on the first day before the first lynch?

Yea...we can discuss all day...people will claim whatever...and we still won't lynch anyone...but just for the sake of speeding up the game...I'll unvote...lol

Unvote: Xtoxm

I see a conflict here. You claim that you are unvoting Xtoxm to "speed the game up," but that doesn't make any sense. How does UN-voting speed up the game?

Personally, I think you are unvoting Xtoxm because your random vote is still on him, and the random voting stage appears to be over. I think that this is a perfectly legitimate reason to remove a vote, so why not just tell us that is the case instead of claiming it's only to "speed up the game?"

Inf, what do you think Mafia is about, and why did you sign up for this game? - This is a genuine question.

I think a few of us are interested in your response to this question.

[GIEFF]

RealityFan and militant are the only two people who still have their random votes active (both on me, incidentally). I'm going to

FoS militant

, as RealityFan appears to be inactive.

[GIEFF]

You have had the chance to unvote; he has not, as he hasn't even come back to the thread since his vote.

Maybe that is the norm here; leave the random vote on until a better target comes along, but in my mind, the random vote should be unvoted when the random-voting stage is over.

I asked the question a few posts back - is it typical to leave random votes "on" this late in the game? If one of the IC's can confirm that it is not scummy to leave random votes on this late, I would be happy to remove my FoS.


@infamous:

Can you please explain why you feel that unvoting Xtoxm "speeds the game up?"

[GIEFF]

Let's go through the timeline, inf:

137:

How much info can you really get on the first day before the first lynch?

Yea...we can discuss all day...people will claim whatever...and we still won't lynch anyone...but just for the sake of speeding up the game...I'll unvote...lol

Unvote: Xtoxm

139:

I see a conflict here. You claim that you are unvoting Xtoxm to "speed the game up," but that doesn't make any sense. How does UN-voting speed up the game?

Personally, I think you are unvoting Xtoxm because your random vote is still on him, and the random voting stage appears to be over. I think that this is a perfectly legitimate reason to remove a vote, so why not just tell us that is the case instead of claiming it's only to "speed up the game?"

You ignored this question, until I asked again in 149:

@infamous:

Can you please explain why you feel that unvoting Xtoxm "speeds the game up?"

And your reply was:

lol...it was sarcasm

Doesn't seem much like sarcasm to me, but if it really is sarcasm then the question in post 139 still stands; why did you unvote Xtoxm?

And a secondary question has now arisen; why is it so difficult for you to provide your reasoning for unvoting Xtoxm?

[GIEFF]

I disagree, I prefer to just leave it there unvote someone who actually warrants my vote comes along.

But in the meantime, I am at L-2 for no reason whatsoever. What is the harm in unvoting? Don't you agree that it seems a little scummy to purposely leave someone at L-2 without a reason to pressure him?

[GIEFF]

Unvote

If realityfan is going to post in time, I think he/she has some questions to answer. But that seems to be unlikely. I don't want his/her probable replacement to inherit a vote he/she didn't earn, so I'm unvoting.

Bad philosphy.

If a previous owner of a role has earnt a vote, getting replaced should not redeem the role.

But in this case, RealityFan hasn't been scummy so much as just inactive.

Being scummy is a quality of the character, being inactive is a quality of the poster.

[GIEFF]

Yes, I thought there were 7 people, not 9. My point still stands, I think. I notice you STILL haven't unvoted.

I am more interested in my questions to infamous in post 152, though, and we're getting sidetracked from that.

[GIEFF]

Yes, thanks!

Now I'm just waiting on infamous to answer my post 152.

[GIEFF]

Because there was no reason for it in the first place? I fail to see how that is scummy - you guys attacking him actually looks scummier in my eyes.

[GIEFF]

But this isn't a case of militant not standing behind his opinion - there WAS no opinion. It was a random vote.

I agree with you on infamous, uri. I find it odd that I posted 152 just 10 minutes after one of infamous' posts, and two days later he still hasn't responded.

infamous, I am going to quote my post 152 here again, to be sure you don't miss it.

Let's go through the timeline, inf:

137:

How much info can you really get on the first day before the first lynch?

Yea...we can discuss all day...people will claim whatever...and we still won't lynch anyone...but just for the sake of speeding up the game...I'll unvote...lol

Unvote: Xtoxm

139:

I see a conflict here. You claim that you are unvoting Xtoxm to "speed the game up," but that doesn't make any sense. How does UN-voting speed up the game?

Personally, I think you are unvoting Xtoxm because your random vote is still on him, and the random voting stage appears to be over. I think that this is a perfectly legitimate reason to remove a vote, so why not just tell us that is the case instead of claiming it's only to "speed up the game?"

You ignored this question, until I asked again in 149:

@infamous:

Can you please explain why you feel that unvoting Xtoxm "speeds the game up?"

And your reply was:

lol...it was sarcasm

Doesn't seem much like sarcasm to me, but if it really is sarcasm then the question in post 139 still stands; why did you unvote Xtoxm?

And a secondary question has now arisen; why is it so difficult for you to provide your reasoning for unvoting Xtoxm?

[GIEFF]

hambargaz - it looks scummy to me because the logic behind it is faulty. The case against militant was based on him changing his opinion, but as I said, there was no opinion to change - it was a random vote.

I never said militant is innocent, or even looks innocent, I simply said that the unvote does not seem scummy.

Do you disagree?

[GIEFF]

the opinion wasn't that gieff is guilty, it was that you shouldn't change your RV until something better comes along...

Good point - I know see why you questioned militant about this. It does seem scummy to claim that you don't unvote out of principle, but then to do so pretty quickly anyway, militant. My FoS will remain on you.

It was because everyone else took away their random votes...so I did it when I got on...

Is this meant to be your answer to my questions? Again, the first reason you gave for unvoting Xtoxm was to speed the game up, which makes little sense. I said this:

Personally, I think you are unvoting Xtoxm because your random vote is still on him, and the random voting stage appears to be over. I think that this is a perfectly legitimate reason to remove a vote, so why not just tell us that is the case instead of claiming it's only to "speed up the game?"

Then you said it was sarcasm. And now, when pressed, you wait three days, and then say that my suspicions in the above quote were correct. If my above quote was actually correct, why not just say that from the start? Why did it take two different answers (read: lies) and almost a week for you to give this answer?

As I said earlier, I think the best way to find scum is to find people who are not using logic to make their decisions. Scum do not need to use logic as they already know which side everybody is on - they simply need to "fake" logic so their decisions aren't questioned.

vote: infamousace2

[GIEFF]

Votes by Chronology

Post 19

Elennaro

FoS: clockworkruse
Post 22

infamousace2

FoS: ClockworkRuse
Post 26

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm
Post 28

militant

Vote: GIEFF
Post 30

urielzyx

VOTE: Elannaro
Post 32

infamousace2

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 41

Elennaro

Vote: urielzyx Unvote. UnFoS.
Post 43

RealityFan

Vote: Gieff
Post 57

urielzyx

Unvote
Post 82

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 88

Xtoxm

Vote Militant
Post 95

hambargarz

Unvote Vote: militant
Post 96

ClockworkRuse

Unvote Vote hambargarz
Post 97

Elennaro

Vote: RealityFan
Post 110

hambargarz

FOS: ClockworkRuse
Post 121

urielzyx

Vote: infamousace2
Post 137

infamousace2

Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 146

GIEFF

FoS militant
Post 157

Elennaro

Unvote
Post 169

militant

Unvote
Post 171

ClockworkRuse

Vote: Militant
Post 177

hambargarz

FOS: GIEFF
Post 189

GIEFF

Vote: infamousace2

Votes by Poster

Elennaro

FoS: clockworkruse Post 19
Vote: urielzyx, Unvote., UnFoS. Post 41
Vote: RealityFan Post 97
Unvote Post 157

infamousace2

FoS: ClockworkRuse Post 22
Vote: Xtoxm Post 32
Unvote: Xtoxm Post 137

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm Post 26
Unvote, Vote: militant Post 95
FOS: ClockworkRuse Post 110
FOS: GIEFF Post 177

militant

Vote: GIEFF Post 28
Unvote Post 169

urielzyx

VOTE: Elannaro Post 30
Unvote Post 57
Vote: infamousace2 Post 121

RealityFan

Vote: Gieff Post 43

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 82
Unvote, Vote hambargarz Post 96
Vote: Militant Post 171

Xtoxm

Vote Militant Post 88

GIEFF

FoS militant Post 146
Vote infamousace Post 189






Clockwork - based on the above, it looks like you never unvoted hambargaz before voting Militant.
MOD EDIT:

unvotes not required

[GIEFF]

I don't want to take the heat off of infamousace2, who I find very scummy, and I would still very much like to hear both further explanation on his part, and what everyone else thinks about his inability to be honest about his reasons for unvoting Xtoxm.

But because militant is now at L-2 with 2 FoS's on him, I feel a summary of the case against militant is in order.

Xtoxm was the first to vote militant

Post 88

Asking someone else to create discussion strikes me as silly. I'm not sure if it's scummy.

I will

Vote Militant

.

I think that last post sounds kind of like he's forcing himself to say something.

The "last post" being referenced is Post 85:

Vote: ClockworkRuse

Discuss.

Well, you are voting yourself. At any rate you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour. What your possible motives for you to vote yourself still escape me though.

I don't see the forcing here, Xtoxm; as far as I can tell, ClockworkRuse asked for discussion, and militant obliged. Could you elaborate on what makes you think militant's reply was "forced," Xtoxm?

hambargaz voted for militant soon after:

Post 95

I agree, active lurking is scummy behaviour (as I learned in my last game)

Unvote

Vote: militant

The reason given was "active lurking," which is based off Xtoxm's suggestion in post 88 that militant's reply was forced, and not adding anything of benefit to the town.

ClockworkRuse immediately voted hambargaz for this post, questioning why hambargaz focused on militant when there were other lurkers, and hambargaz OMGUS-FOS'd Clockwork Ruse in Post 110.

Clockwork, do you still feel suspicious of hambargaz for focusing on militant? Or were you convinced by his answer in Post 102?

I FoS'd militant in Post 146

RealityFan and militant are the only two people who still have their random votes active (both on me, incidentally). I'm going to

FoS militant

, as RealityFan appears to be inactive.

ClockworkRuse was the third to vote militant, in Post 171

Yes, I thought there were 7 people, not 9. My point still stands, I think. I notice you STILL haven't unvoted.

I am more interested in my questions to infamous in post 152, though, and we're getting sidetracked from that.

Fine

Unvote

Happy now?

Unvoting to make someone happy? XD

Vote: Militant

That is pretty much two accounts of appeasement.

Clockwork, what was the first account of appeasement?

And Elennaro recently FoS'd militant in Post 190

Militant, I wonder why you keep saying you noticed something scummy, yet can't seem to manage just posting it. This looks scummy to me.

FoS: militant.

I'd vote but that would mean L-1, and I don't want to do that.

So this seems odd to me - there are 5 people suspicious of Militant, but for 4 different reasons. In summary:

1. Xtoxm & hambargaz - Sensed active lurking
2. GIEFF - Felt militant left random vote on for too long
3. ClockworkRuse - Felt militant was appeasing me by taking his random vote off of me after I FoS'd him
4. Elennaro - Thinks that militant is claiming to find hambargaz' behavior scummy without stating why.

Please let me know if I have mis-characterized your reasoning. As this wagon is close to lynching, I would like to get EVERYONE's thoughts on the above 4 reasons. I will start:

1 - Active lurking.

I disagree with this; could hambargaz or Xtoxm please explain further? Militant was just responding to Clockwork's request for discussion, as far as I can tell.

2 - Random vote left on too long.

I agree with this.

3 - Appeasement.

I agree. At first I thought the "opinion" referenced was militant's opinion about why he voted for me, but I now see that it refers to militant's opinion about not removing random votes until a better target presents itself. However, I feel that appeasement with regards to policy (i.e. metagame) is less scummy than appeasement with regards to the reasons behind a lynch (which is what I thought was initially meant by the appeasement charge). Do you agree with this, Clockwork and uri?

4 - Withholding scummy evidence.

I disagree. I believe militant is referring to his accusation that hambargaz was himself lurking when he accused militant of active-lurking. Your quote of militant in post 193 was referring to hambargaz' accusations that militant was reading his posts with bias.

[GIEFF]

When he was talking after I said discuss, I felt that was some minor appeasement too.

And I think you need to explain your question a little more, I'm not exactly following.

Do you mean the question about post 96? (here is Post 95, in which you FoS'd hambargaz. Are you still suspicious that hambargaz focused on militant instead of other lurkers?

I really don't think that what militant did in post was appeasement. You, an IC, asked for discussion on a point of theory, and he provided some. That is not appeasement; that is simply responding to your request for some discussion.

Also, why was no suspicion thrown on uri for his post 83? What is different about his response and militant's response in 85?

[GIEFF]

None of that discussion is relevant to this game, uri, and is becoming distracting. I think we have all agreed that there is pretty much no reason for town to lie in this setup, and the fact that infamousace2 has lied TWICE now about his reasons for unvoting Xtoxm is a large part of why I find him so suspicious.

Thanks for the in-depth post, CarnCarn! Regarding your IGMEOY for me; I said thanks because I was not comfortable being at L-2 (really L-3, though) from 100% random votes.

Ok typo on my part, Swap the names GIEFF and militant. I'm referring to GIEFF. GIEFF appeared to be defending you. In the face of the evidence he appears to have an unusual bias to innocence regarding you. I know everyone has their own opinion, If GIEFF provided rock solid reasons that would have been acceptable otherwise, it looks like he's defending you.

hambargaz, I have already addressed this, in post 178.

Post 178:

hambargaz - it looks scummy to me because the logic behind it is faulty. The case against militant was based on him changing his opinion, but as I said, there was no opinion to change - it was a random vote.

I never said militant is innocent, or even looks innocent, I simply said that the unvote does not seem scummy.

Do you disagree?

Again, I have never said I think militant is innocent. All I am doing is questioning logic that I do not understand, which is not at all the same as defending militant or claiming he is innocent. Calling people scummy for questioning logic without "rock-solid reasons" is BAD for the town; we should welcome frank discussions about the reasoning behind votes. Do you agree with this, hambargaz?

In the next few paragraphs, I am going to deconstruct what I feel is a faulty argument on Clockwork's part. It may appear as if I am defending militant, but that is simply because the logic I perceive as faulty is attempting to do the opposite. I hope the difference is clear, as this may come up again later. As I've said again and again, my strategy to find scum is to look for faulty logic behind votes, which is what I was doing in post 196, and what I am doing now.

It was more in the way he did it. I said discuss and he tried to make it seem like he had something to add without really giving an opinion. So, he tried to appease me with his answer while being wishy-washy.

Here is his answer:

Well, you are voting yourself. At any rate you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour. What your possible motives for you to vote yourself still escape me though.

There is content there, his answer was "I feel it's pro-town." I don't see the wishy-washiness; he gave his opinion, but said that he still doesn't understand what your motives were for doing so (which you still have not answered, incidentally). Also, I don't really see how this is appeasement, as the question was not directed at militant.

And even if this WERE a wishy-washy answer, it is hardly a central issue here. As I said in post 196, appeasement about an actual vote in the game is MUCH more suspicious than "appeasement" about theory or other metagame considerations. Scum has no incentive to lie about discussions of theory; their incentive to lie only becomes apparent when trying to explain the reasons for their votes, as there are other factors at play (i.e. actually KNOWING who is town and who isn't, instead of needing to try to puzzle it out, like the rest of us). Does this distinction make sense to you, Clockwork, or am I missing something?

IGMEOY Clockwork

. I do not agree with the logic you have so far presented to support your vote for militant.

[GIEFF]

I've bold and underlined the parts that don't sit right to me, The wordings of these appear to have a bias account of what happened with militant. I can see that GIEFF has chosen to disagree with arguments against militant but that wouldn't make him use the language he has in his above recap.

What are you trying to say in those posts? are you implying that I am suspicious in attacks on militant? It appears that way with the language you have used. If you think you are suspicious of me, go right out and say it.

No, I am not trying to imply anything about you. I will go through each of the underlined parts:

I don't see the forcing...

" I still don't see the forcing. This is not bias, I just do not agree with the charge.

soon

: 10 posts later is soon after, and that word works in that it shows that your vote was based on similar reasoning used by Xtoxm.

active lurking

: I am just trying to reconstruct the narrative of what happened. Xtoxm's reason was "active lurking," and you agreed.

immediately

: This means "the very next post." I used words like soon and immediately because I'm trying to review the militant wagon without forcing people to go back and read the whole thread. Without words like soon and immediately, the context can become lost.

OMGUS-FOS

: I did find your post 110 a little suspicious, hambargaz. Why did you choose to wait until Post 110 to FoS Clockwork, instead of doing so immediately after his self-vote? I labelled it an OMGUS-FOS for this reason; you didn't not FoS Clockwork until he FoS'd you. I didn't think this was all that suspicious, though, and I didn't want to add to an already-too-long post by going off on another tangent. Do you disagree with my characterization of the FoS as OMGUS?

Clockwork, do you still feel suspicious of hambargaz for focusing on militant? Or were you convinced by his answer in Post 102?

If Clockwork was not convinced of my answer, why would this make me be suspicious? You are kind of leading the question here, implying there's only 2 ways to look at it. ie. Either my answer is right, or i'm scum rather. When this is not the case. It also appears like you are inciting suspicions against me without stating you have them yourself.

Where did I say it would make you suspicious? I'm not trying to lead a question at all; I am just wondering why Clockwork removed his vote for you, because in post 103 (right after your post 102 explanation), he seemed to still be suspicious, and did not unvote until much later, and without further discussion. I am still interested in the answer to this, Clockwork, especially considering I find the reasoning behind your new vote (to militant) suspect.

Somewhat ironically, hambargaz, I DO find suspicious your defensiveness in thinking I was saying you were suspicious. Was there anything else besides my use of context words (i.e. soon and immediately) or the OMGUS-FOS thing that made you think I was trying to attack you?

I FoS'd militant in Post 146

RealityFan and militant are the only two people who still have their random votes active (both on me, incidentally). I'm going to FoS militant, as RealityFan appears to be inactive.

Here you've stated you have FOS'd militant. This doesn't stop me from feeling you are buddying with militant, it feels more like distancing, mainly because the reason you gave was wishy-washy. It is as if you are excusing you're FOS.

I am not excusing anything; again, I am just summarizing the wagon on militant, of which I am a part. Also, militant was the ONLY active player in the game who still had his random vote "on," even after I questioned infamous and militant for it; in what way is using that reasoning for a vote wishy-washy, hambargaz? Does anybody else find it wishy-washy?

I believe I already have an FOS on you. I haven't voted for you because you're summaries smell townie to me making militant the more likely scum, but I can't ignore things like this, coupled with you're defending of militant. militant should answer for himself, only scum have a reason to defend someone.

I addressed your "defending" accusations in more depth in post 210, and would like to hear whether my point makes sense to you.

1 - Active lurking.

Obviously I Agree.

2 - Random vote left on too long.

Neutral. I see this as a very minor point

3 - Appeasement.

I Agree.

4 - Withholding scummy evidence.

I Agree, I think you may have misunderstood Elennaro's post. militant made the excuse that something I said was scummy which motivated him to re-read with a particular "interest" in me. The question is.. Why didn't militant just outright say what it was that was scummy? I'm quite certain it's because he DIDN'T have a case and had to go back and make one up on me.

Thanks. Your point on #4 makes Elenarro's accusation more clear to me. It does seem suspicious that the only evidence militant later presented was the fact that you, too, were lurking, which is hardly enough to warrant a re-read with particular focus on you.


My apologies about your name, uriel. I understand why you brought it up again, and I wasn't trying to scold you or anything; I just wanted to establish that we've achieved consensus on that point, and get back to the flurry of activity that CarnCarn has helped to start.

[GIEFF]

militant has requested replacement. Looking for one now.

I assume the request is due to this:

I am doing a quick re read rather than a slow one. I have a unexpected visit to a unwell relative this evening which I was not anticipating.

Best wishes, militant; I hope everything is all right.

[GIEFF]

I don't think anti-town = scummy; the player could just be confused, or could be a victim of unintended consequences.

But if someone continues to exhibit anti-town behavior, even after repeated warnings, then I think the behavior becomes scummy.

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on some of the questions I've asked you, Clockwork, especially your reasons for voting militant and unvoting hambargaz, although this isn't all. Although militant is back down to L-3 now I think, and infamous is now at L-2, I'd still like to hear people's thoughts on the 4 reasons to suspect militant that I outlined earlier.

[GIEFF]

Lurking IMHO is scummy behaviour, but flaking is not. I even view it as a (very minor) town-tell, as I think townies are more likely to get bored with the game.

I don't think flaking is an indicator one way or the other. In my last game, a scum player was replaced twice.

It's unfortunate _over9000 has replaced with some explaining to do. To me he is the most suspicious so my vote remains.

_over9000, do you have anything to say in your defence? What are your thoughts on GIEFF's protective behaviour of you? What are your thoughts on infamousace2's deliberate lack of contribution?

This is a leading question. I have not protected anyone; I have simply questioned logic with which I do not agree.

[GIEFF]

I already gave my reason for not immediately voting. I then voted after that conditional was met. Now, what effect on the game did delaying my vote have, exactly?

It is just plain silly to read 8 pages, then post a response, and then read the 9th page after this response. It seems VERY unlikely to me that this is actually what you did, which makes your initial answer for not voting CR ("I hadn't finished reading so I didn't know if ClockworkRuse was close to being lynched") a lie.

It's very interesting to me that _over9000 did the same thing that militant was voted for; failure to explain the reasoning for not voting (not unvoting in militant's case), realizing the reasoning was flawed, and then "appeasing" to cover up this faulty logic.

HoS over9000

. I am OK with an _over lynch at this point, but I would really like to hear some more from infamous.

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on some of the questions I've asked you, Clockwork,

especially your reasons for voting militant and unvoting hambargaz

, although this isn't all. Although militant is back down to L-3 now I think, and infamous is now at L-2, I'd still like to hear people's thoughts on the 4 reasons to suspect militant that I outlined earlier.

Working on it, I've been a little side-tracked by other games recently. Expect an answer later tonight.

This was 5 days ago; I understand you're busy with other games, but I just thought I'd remind you. Here is your last post about hambargaz, for your reference:

Post 103

[GIEFF]

Thanks, CR. Yeah, point 4 was a little hard to describe, but I've since been convinced that it is a valid one. hambargaz did a good job of describing it in 208:

I Agree, I think you may have misunderstood Elennaro's post. militant made the excuse that something I said was scummy which motivated him to re-read with a particular "interest" in me. The question is.. Why didn't militant just outright say what it was that was scummy? I'm quite certain it's because he DIDN'T have a case and had to go back and make one up on me.

And after all the rereading militant did with a focus on hambargaz, the only scummy thing militant found was that hambargaz was lurking, too. I don't think it makes sense that noticing a lurk is what caused militant to claim he needs to re-read with a focus on hambargaz, so this looks like a lie to me.


I am also curious as to the suspicions you outlined in post 103, Clockwork. At the time, you voted for hambargaz. Is hambargaz still high on your scumdar and you just feel that militant/_over is scummier? Or has hambargaz his answer convince you he was town?

[GIEFF]

Thanks, Clockwork - I was more interested in your thought process and why you dropped your suspicions against ham than your suspicions themselves.

I've noticed a pattern with your posts, Xtoxm. You were the first to cast suspicion on BOTH militant and infamous, and both wagons have gained steam, and it looks like we're going to lynch one or the other of them. I know scum-hunting is as townie as it gets, but your scum-hunting lacks content; you were twice the first person to cast suspicion, and both times you left the following-up and questioning to others.

This could be a case of people taking your opinions more seriously due to your IC status, but I'd like to see more analysis from you about the wagons you have started (and about any you may start in the future).

[GIEFF]

I believe I explained my reasons for finding them suspicous well.

People often moan at me for not giving copius amounts of content in my posts. I don't feel there's anything more to say.

But you're an IC for this game; isn't it your responsibility to post a bit of content to help the newbies out?

[GIEFF]

If you don't have anything to say, then don't force anything; I just think that you haven't been all that involved in our scumhunting.

But this is only my second game, and I don't know your playstyle, so I'll take your word for it.

[GIEFF]

Mod: Could we get a votecount?

[GIEFF]

Picking up the prod. Don't see much new to say at this point. Looking back, it looks like infamous' scummy behavior may have just been to being new, so I'm willing to switch my vote to _over.

All this replacing makes things very difficult, both for continuity and for figuring out who is scum. I do appreciate you finding replacements though, hasdgfas.

[GIEFF]

unvote Westbrook (previously infamous)
vote _over9000

FoS Westbrook

While I still find infamous' behavior suspicious, I can't very well pressure Westbrook about it. _over hasn't posted in over 2 weeks, we all seem to be OK with lynching him, and he's caused the game to come to a standstill. I also found _over's lie about his reluctance to vote for CR just as suspicious as anything militant did; the same can't be said of Westbrook, although he has posted almost nothing since joining the game.

I believe _over is at L-1 now, so Xtoxm, Westbrook, Elennaro, and SilverPhoenix have the ability to hammer.

SilverPhoenix, you had a good first post (287), and promised more discussion about your CR vote, but it hasn't happened yet. Can you elaborate on your reasons for voting CR?

[GIEFF]

I'm still waiting for some answers and activity. I'm here everyone.

Unvote

I am not okay with _over being at L-1. He needs a chance to defend himself.

He has had 2 and a half weeks to do so, and has not. This can go two ways; _over comes back and defends himself successfully, or he doesn't come back and gets replaced.

The first is highly unlikely. And if we wait for him to get replaced, his replacement will have about a week (assuming it takes a week to get replaced) to read the whole thread and deflect enough suspicion to lynch somebody else by the deadline. I don't see that happening, either; how can you defend what two other people did?

And a lynch wouldn't be based on 3 posts, it would be based on all of militant's behavior as well, right?

[GIEFF]

What do you expect to change in 11 days, CR? I don't think a replacement will be able to come in, read all 300 posts, and quickly mount enough of a defense of TWO different people's scummy actions to deflect enough suspicion onto somebody else in just 11 days.

Does anybody else have an opinion on this?



And Westbrook, I'm still waiting for you to post your thoughts. Just what you think of each poster as you read the thread would be helpful.

[GIEFF]

CR; I am not trying to say you are scummy, I'm trying to say that I don't think 11 days will make a difference.

Glad to see the replacement, though; thanks Dipstick, and thanks hasdfgas.


Westbrook and Dipstick; you two are the most suspicious to me, and to most, although this is based entirely on the actions of your predecessors. The best thing that both of you can do to remove suspicion from yourselves would be some long, detailed posts analyzing who you think looks the most suspicious and why.

[GIEFF]

I am telling them how to remove suspicion in an effort to get this game moving. He said it was his second game, so I'm letting him know how to play it.

[GIEFF]

I am telling them how to remove suspicion in an effort to get this game moving. He said it was his second game, so I'm letting him know how to play it.

I understand that you are "trying to help them play the game."

It's just the way you did it is suspicious. Why tell them how to get rid of suspicion?

And in your opinion, is a player who posts like you stated pro-town?

Not at all, but in my eyes the more that somebody writes, the more chances there are for us to catch them making a mistake.

I am telling them how to get rid of suspicion because if they in fact do as I ask, they really WOULD get rid of suspicion. Actually presenting your opinion as to who is scum would be hard to do if you really KNEW who was scum (as the scum do), so if they were able to do so to my satisfaction, it really would alleviate suspicion in my eyes, even though I told them how to do it.


Maybe this is just tunnel-vision, but Dipstick's posts seem scummy to me. He is unable to provide any reason why he finds Westbrook scummy, and if I were scum in his shoes, I would naturally try to deflect suspicion onto the next-most-likely lynch, which just happens to be infamous/Westbrook.




I am still uncomfortable with Westbrook's lack of activity; please give us some logic or analysis, as you promised you would do when you were less tired.

[GIEFF]

Dipstick, that analysis of infamous' post strikes me as a justification for a suspicion held for another reason, rather than something that contributed to the suspicion in the first place.

Other than that, the only reason you've given is that he "wanted to get through the day quickly."

But I wanted to get through this day quickly, too, and to a greater extent than infamous did. If the true reason for your suspicion really was because he wanted to get through the day quickly, why didn't you say that you suspected me?

Here is what I think the answer is; that is NOT your reason for suspecting infamous. Your "reason" is that you are close to a lynch, and the best strategy to avoid it is to pick on the next-closest person to a lynch. This is possibly a play that townie would make, too, but if I knew that I was going to be lynched, I would at least try to post as much analysis as possible on everyone to give the town the best chance to win. A lynch gives the town a LOT of information, as we get to see the lynchee's role/alignment, and how other players reacted to the now-known alignment of the lynchee. If you only make cases against one or two players, then tomorrow we only get to analyze one or two players' reactions to you.

As I've said over and over, finding faulty logic behind a vote is the main tool I am using to scumhunt, and your logic appears to be faulty. I fell victim to tunnel-vision in my previous (and first) game, and I hope I'm not doing the same thing here, but you still seem very scummy to me, and I am comfortable with my vote of you.

Also, I'm glad we didn't lynch yet as I was pushing for earlier; we've gotten some great info in the last few posts.



And regarding CarnCarn's question, CR summed up my position accurately; the longer the posts, the more chances there are to slip up. This holds especially true for players like Westbrook and Dipstick who recently joined the game; their predecessors may have posted a fair amount, but that it does us little good in questioning them about what other people said, so I want to see as much from them as possible so they can "catch up" with the rest of us.

[GIEFF]

@ Westbrook:

I meant "catch up" not as in reading the thread, but as in posting as much analysis and reasoning as the rest of us have. It is helpful for two reasons; it helps finding scum due to the analysis itself, and it presents more "data" for the rest of us to analyze later.


@ Xtoxm:

I've contributed plenty.

To test this claim, I took the liberty of tracking all your posts that were about scumhunting in this game (not about meta-game or general strategy). My words are in italics, added for context. Please let me know if there is something I've missed.

Post 88:

Asking someone else to create discussion strikes me as silly. I'm not sure if it's scummy.

I will Vote Militant.

I think that last post sounds kind of like he's forcing himself to say something.

Post 91:

Well, i'm not sure about the validity of your second point

(that militant may be new)

, but it is discounted anyway by the fact Militant has already played in several games, and is ranked goon.

Post 120:

Inf's recent posts strike me as odd, even coming from someone not used to the pace of games here.

Post 129:

Inf, what do you think Mafia is about, and why did you sign up for this game? - This is a genuine question

Post 160:

Bad philosphy.

(Elennaro unvoting RealityFan due to getting replace by militant)

. If a previous owner of a role has earnt a vote, getting replaced should not redeem the role.

Post 220:

Mmk skimmed through most stuff, not that long, was worried it would be!

On the cop with guilty - I was refering to this game only. Sometimes in larger games he might want to hold onto it.

We do not know, however if a cop has a guilty he certainly wants to get it out there right away. Then other peoples decide...

About Militant - Yes, I did find it a bit forced

(his response to CR's random vote)

, although it was for the most part just trying to start things off. I have been unimpressed with Inf since I brought him up, hence shall change.

Unvote Vote Inf

Post 238:

Oooh, I take that as a scumtell. Why did you not want to "jump straight in with a vote"?

(referring to _over saying he didn't want to vote CR before reading the entire thread)

Post 260:

I'm not sus of Ham.

Anyway, i've got my top 2 suspects, and i'm ready to lynch.

Post 263:

I believe I explained my reasons for finding them suspicous well.

(referring to militant/_over and infamous)

People often moan at me for not giving copius amounts of content in my posts. I don't feel there's anything more to say.

Post 270:

I have 2 suspects currently, Inf and Over. This implies I think the rest of town are town, and although I have an order of suspicion it is not beneficial to state it.

Post 273:

Inf's recent posts strike me as odd, even coming from someone not used to the pace of games here.

About Militant - Yes, I did find it a bit forced, although it was for the most part just trying to start things off. I have been unimpressed with Inf since I brought him up, hence shall change.

Oooh, I take that as a scumtell.

Why did you not want to "jump straight in with a vote"?

Also, it seems I never mentioned, but there was one post from Inf, where he expresses that he is suprised at being voted for not contributing on Day One. It struck me as coming from a surprised scum, who thought he could lurk it

Post 314:

Yeh, waiting for a claim is a good idea.

All the logic behind your scumhunting can be summed in 30 words: "militant's reply seemed forced, but I'm not sure it's scummy" and "infamous' recent posts strike me as odd, his answers haven't impressed me, and he was surprised at getting voted."

As I said back in post 262, you were the first to cast suspicion on the two people who are now closest to being lynched, and have provided a very small amount of reasoning to support either lynch. You've repeated more than once how certain you are of the two posters you suspect, and haven't analyzed anything that anyone else has said.

Looking back at just how little analysis you have provided makes me think you are scum trying to start bandwagons but not wanting to follow up on them so you don't seem too involved.

HoS Xtoxm

[GIEFF]

Check out the wiki article, insanepenguin: http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=WIFOM

There is some other good stuff on there you should probably read, too.



I figure this is as good a time as any to post an update on the voting history:

By Character:

Elennaro

FoS: clockworkruse Post 19
Vote: urielzyx, Unvote., UnFoS. Post 41
Vote: RealityFan Post 97
Unvote Post 157
FoS: militant. Post 190

Westbrook_Owns_U

FoS: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 22
Vote: Xtoxm

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 32
Unvote: Xtoxm

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 137
FoS: _over9000, FoS: Xtoxm Post 284

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm Post 26
Unvote, Vote: militant Post 95
FOS: ClockworkRuse Post 110
FOS: GIEFF Post 177
+1 FOS: militant Post 209
+1 FOS: _over9000 Post 248
+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 341

Dipstick

Vote: GIEFF

(Posted as militant)

Post 28
Unvote

(Posted as militant)

Post 169
FOS: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as _over9000)

Post 235
vote: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as _over9000)

Post 240
Unvote Post 318
FoS Westbrook_Owns_U Post 342

SilverPhoenix

VOTE: Elannaro

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 30
Unvote

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 57
Vote: infamousace2

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 121
Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 287

CarnCarn

Vote: Gieff

(Posted as RealityFan)

Post 43
Unvote, Random Vote: Xtoxm, FoS: Elennaro, FoS: militant, Unvote: Xtoxm Post 204
Unvote:Elennaro Post 230
Vote: _over9000 Post 252

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 82
Unvote, Vote hambargarz Post 96
Vote: Militant Post 171
HoS over9000
Post 281
Unvote Post 305
FoS GIEFF Post 322

Xtoxm

Vote Militant Post 88
Unvote Vote Inf Post 220

GIEFF

FoS militant Post 146
vote: infamousace2 Post 189
HoS over9000 Post 254
unvote Westbrook (previously infamous) vote _over9000, FoS Westbrook Post 304

By Chronology:

Post Number

Poster

Vote
Post 19

Elennaro

FoS: clockworkruse
Post 22

infamousace2

FoS: ClockworkRuse
Post 26

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm
Post 28

militant

Vote: GIEFF
Post 30

urielzyx

VOTE: Elannaro
Post 32

infamousace2

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 41

Elennaro

Vote: urielzyx Unvote. UnFoS.
Post 43

RealityFan

Vote: Gieff
Post 57

urielzyx

Unvote
Post 82

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse

End of Random Voting Stage

Post 88

Xtoxm

Vote Militant
Post 95

hambargarz

Unvote Vote: militant
Post 96

ClockworkRuse

Unvote Vote hambargarz
Post 97

Elennaro

Vote: RealityFan
Post 110

hambargarz

FOS: ClockworkRuse
Post 121

urielzyx

Vote: infamousace2
Post 137

infamousace2

Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 146

GIEFF

FoS militant
Post 157

Elennaro

Unvote
Post 169

militant

Unvote
Post 171

ClockworkRuse

Vote: Militant
Post 177

hambargarz

FOS: GIEFF
Post 189

GIEFF

vote: infamousace2
Post 190

Elennaro

FoS: militant.
Post 204

CarnCarn

Unvote Random Vote: Xtoxm FoS: Elennaro FoS: militant Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 209

hambargarz

+1 FOS: militant
Post 220

Xtoxm

Unvote Vote Inf
Post 230

CarnCarn

Unvote:Elennaro
Post 235

_over9000

FOS: ClockworkRuse
Post 240

_over9000

vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 248

hambargarz

+1 FOS: _over9000
Post 252

CarnCarn

Vote: _over9000
Post 254

GIEFF

HoS over9000
Post 256

ClockworkRuse

HoS over9000
Post 281

ClockworkRuse

Mod: Any responses from those prods?
Post 284

Westbrook_Owns_U

FoS: _over9000 FoS: Xtoxm
Post 287

SilverPhoenix

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 304

GIEFF

unvote Westbrook (previously infamous) <BR>vote _over9000 FoS Westbrook
Post 305

ClockworkRuse

Unvote
Post 318

Dipstick

Unvote
Post 322

ClockworkRuse

FoS GIEFF
Post 341

hambargarz

+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 342

Dipstick

FoS Westbrook_Owns_U

[GIEFF]

If we don't have 5 votes on anybody before 5 days are up, it is a no-lynch, which is not good for the town.

If you think you may not be able to get back to the thread in 5 days, please vote now to avoid a no-lynch.

[GIEFF]

Mod, can you prod Xtoxm and CarnCarn?

MOD EDIT: DONE

[GIEFF]

Yeah, I'm still here. I've been keeping up with the Dipstick/Westbrook comments, and I honestly haven't seen anything that makes me want to change my vote.

And regarding CarnCarn's question, CR summed up my position accurately; the longer the posts, the more chances there are to slip up. This holds especially true for players like Westbrook and Dipstick who recently joined the game; their predecessors may have posted a fair amount, but that it does us little good in questioning them about what other people said, so I want to see as much from them as possible so they can "catch up" with the rest of us.

I disagree with this full-heartedly. Longer posts do not in any way decrease the chances of that poster being scum.
[/i][/b]

That's not what I'm saying; I'm saying that the longer the posts are, the more chances there are for scum to slip up. People's posts are all we have to analyze. New people don't have as many posts, and therefore, it's in our interest for them to make longer ones, so there is more for us to analyze. Do you agree with that?

[GIEFF]

Saying Xtoxm has been "active" elsewhere on the site is somewhat of an understatement; he has made FORTY posts in other games since his last one here.


Dipstick:

Well, Westbrook hasnt posted any logic/analysis... im thinking that either:
1. They are avoiding to post much because they could give away Mafia status (IF they are mafia)
2. They arent on much... (which means they could be MAFIA OR townsfolk...)

And, I know my posts may seem scummy, I just cant find any reasons to see anyone as suspicious... so im just aiming at the MOST suspicious (Westbrook/inf)

Westbrook has posted logic/analysis now. Do you still find him scummy? If not, who is the most scummy to you?

When you say "aiming for the most suspicious" do you mean most suspicious to you, or what you perceive as most suspicious to everyone else? Because if you mean the latter (and I think you do), that is very scummy behavior.

I don't like how difficult it has been for you to provide the reasoning behind your votes.

I was surprised ending up Townsfolk after reading my prodeccors posts...

If you were townsfolk, you would have known this BEFORE reading your predecessors posts, correct? This is a pretty big slip in my opinion. You wouldn't be reading your predecessors posts wondering what alignment they were; you'd be reading your predecessors posts KNOWING what alignment they were and trying to judge how people reacted to them. If you knew your predecessors were town, wouldn't you be suspicious of those who attacked them the most strongly?

Please do not hammer Dipstick yet; anybody who does will shoot up my scumlist. If someone wishes to vote but may not be around to hammer, I'd be happy to unvote, let you vote, and hammer myself before the deadline.

[GIEFF]

If lynch has occurred, we're not supposed to talk anymore, right?

[GIEFF]

Sorry, Dipstick.

Vote Xtoxm

No posts for days and days after my case against him, although he posted 40 TIMES elsewhere on the site in that span, yet he manages to make it back to hammer JUST 7 MINUTES after Dipstick hits L-1.

I'm a little surprised at the pick of Insanepenguin.

[GIEFF]

When I voted L-1, the game was dead; _over hadn't posted in two weeks, no new content had been posted for one week (other than replacements trying to catch up), and I didn't think we would get a replacement so soon. And L-1 is WORLDS different from a hammer; trying to claim otherwise is false.

You posted 40 times over 3 days in other parts of the site. That's over 4,000 minutes, and you expect me to believe that you coming back

7 minutes

after L-1 to hammer was just a coincidence?

All you have provided the town is 30 words, two bandwagons (one of which has been proven to be false and the other of which you are still on) and a premature hammer.

This is why logic is better than what you call "emotion;" when your emotions are wrong, there is nothing left to say but "trust me."

[GIEFF]

Oh, you're right; it was more like 90 minutes.

[GIEFF]

You're right; 90 minutes makes a big difference as far as the statistical argument, and I no longer think you were just lurking and waiting for your chance to hammer.

Do you have a response to post 356?

[GIEFF]

I made a mistake, CR; I knew that Xtoxm hammered quickly, and to see how quickly I scrolled back to the last post with a vote in it, failing to notice it was a vote for somebody else. The point that it was a quick lynch still stands, although I agree that 90 minutes is a lot different from 7 minutes in terms of a purely statistical argument.


In what way is my summary in post 356 misrepresenting, Xtoxm? If you really thought it was misrepresenting, shouldn't you have brought it up on your own instead of waiting for me to pry it out of you? (This isn't the first time I've had to prod you for answers, incidentally). Are there any content-filled posts of yours I missed? Did I not provide enough context? I spent a long time putting that together, and I asked you days ago to point out any inconsistencies or omissions. If you see any, now is the time to point them out.

Or maybe you could some reasoning behind your suspicion of infamous other than "his posts strike me as odd" and "he hasn't impressed me." Your emotion led us astray on day 1, and I am not inclined to trust it again in the absence of reasoning.

[GIEFF]

Gieff, what the fuck are you on about? How did my emotion have anything to do with the D1 lynch?)

@Xtoxm; I was referencing our earlier discussion of using logic vs. using emotion, as quoted below. I didn't see much logic presented for your vote against Dipstick, so I assumed that emotion was the primary factor for suspecting him (if you are town). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Gieff and Elen do both have valid points to some extent.

Random voting is just as standard really, you shouldn't think much of it. There's nothing wrong with not random voting, either. Note I didn't.

But what I really wanted to comment on was the logic thing. Yes, there is logic in mafia, with use of power roles etc - But largely, I believe Mafia is not a game of logic. Emotion is often a factor, I find. Although yes, random voting doesn't get you far on it's own, it's just a starter really, nothing more.

[GIEFF]

Also Xtoxm, can you detail why you are starting to suspect CR more? Just telling us you suspect him doesn't help the town at all, but listing reasons why you suspect him that CR can respond to is much more helpful.

[GIEFF]

Gieff, what the fuck are you on about? How did my emotion have anything to do with the D1 lynch?)

@Xtoxm; I was referencing our earlier discussion of using logic vs. using emotion, as quoted below. I didn't see much logic presented for your vote against Dipstick, so I assumed that emotion was the primary factor for suspecting him (if you are town). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Gieff and Elen do both have valid points to some extent.

Random voting is just as standard really, you shouldn't think much of it. There's nothing wrong with not random voting, either. Note I didn't.

But what I really wanted to comment on was the logic thing. Yes, there is logic in mafia, with use of power roles etc - But largely, I believe Mafia is not a game of logic. Emotion is often a factor, I find. Although yes, random voting doesn't get you far on it's own, it's just a starter really, nothing more.

How are you defining Emotion and Logic?

A better question is how are YOU defining emotion, as you are the one who used the word first. Here are my thoughts, though.

Logic: Determine who is scum based on logical induction, deduction, and reasoning.
Emotion: Determining who is scum based on instinct and general gut feelings.

Do you agree? And does my post about you using emotion to cast your vote now make more sense?

Also, are you unable to provide your reasons for starting to find CR more suspicious (that you alluded to in your post 47), or was the NK choice the only factor?

[GIEFF]

There is a lot more to logic then just "follow the cop." What you are describing is deductive reasoning; what I mean by logic is better described as explaining exactly why you find somebody scummy, e.g:

Xtoxm is unable to explain why he finds CR suspicious, which fits in with his previous pattern of casting suspicion on others without valid reasons and letting others fill in the gaps. This is scummy because it allows Xtoxm to appear as if he is not involved in a bandwagon, and is anti-town because it gives us nothing to analyze, and doesn't allow the target to defend him- or herself.

Contrast that with:

I have been unimpressed with Inf since I brought him up, hence shall change.

Unvote Vote Inf

I'd rather lynch West, but with a VT claim:

Unvote Vote Dipstick

I understand that your playstyle is conducive to short posts, which I have no problem with, and I understand that the way you hunt scum is based more on feel, which can be difficult to describe, but I believe that failing to provide reasoning for votes is anti-town.




I'll ask for a third time:

Also, are you unable to provide your reasons for starting to find CR more suspicious (that you alluded to in your post 47), or was the NK choice the only factor?

And can you summarize your case on infamous one more time?

[GIEFF]

I thought that we should avoid talking about nightkills as they are WIFOM, CR?

Although as I mentioned earlier Xtoxm, saying you find another scummy without really explaining why makes YOU look scummy.

And hambargaz, didn't you find militant extremely scummy when he did the same thing to you? militant said he found something scummy that you did, and all he later posted was that you were sort of lurky, and you immediately jumped all over him for it. Why haven't you done the same to Xtoxm for saying CR is scummy without much reason?

[GIEFF]

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

Militant later provided his reasoning (you being lurky), but it was deemed weak (by myself and others).

Initially I wasn't suspecting him, but now I am a bit more. The nightkill suits Clock, from the way I see, although that's probably not a useful thing to be thinking about.

Xtoxm still hasn't told us his reasoning, even after repeated questioning. How would that NK benefit ClockworkRuse?

I don't see the conviction you're talking about, hambargaz; can you explain? Xtoxm has shown a history of failing to answer questions until they're asked a third or fourth time and of providing little to no reasoning behind his votes. That is very wishy-washy in my eyes.

Looking at the first two posts on this page reminds me of these two posts:

88 (first vote for militant):

Asking someone else to create discussion strikes me as silly. I'm not sure if it's scummy.

I will

Vote Militant

.

I think that last post sounds kind of like he's forcing himself to say something.

95 (second vote for militant):

I agree, active lurking is scummy behaviour (as I learned in my last game)

Unvote

Vote: militant

The last time you echoed Xtoxm's thoughts, we lynched a townie. Maybe a new strategy is in order.

FoS hambargaz

If Xtoxm is scum, you seem the prime candidate to be his buddy. Can you point me to a post where you address Xtoxm directly without agreeing with him? Can you explain why you think Xtoxm has shown more conviction than militant?

mod, can we get a prod for SilverPhoenix?

[GIEFF]

Can you point me to a post where you address Xtoxm directly without agreeing with him?

I found one, ham:

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &start=264

That seems pretty typical of how I would expect two scumbuddies to interact. A reverse-OMGUS igmeoy followed by two smiley faces and never mentioning it again. Not to mention Xtoxm saying "I'm not sus of ham" twice.

Ham - For same reasons as before, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

And what reasons were these? Can you link me to the post? As far as I can tell, all you've said on the subject was "I'm not sus of ham" with no reasoning whatsoever to explain why, even after you were IGMEOY'd by ham.

[GIEFF]

Post 407:

Clock - Initially I wasn't suspecting him, but now I am a bit more. The nightkill suits Clock, from the way I see, although that's probably not a useful thing to be thinking about.

Post 411:

Also Xtoxm, can you detail why you are starting to suspect CR more? Just telling us you suspect him doesn't help the town at all, but listing reasons why you suspect him that CR can respond to is much more helpful.

Post 416:

How does the night kill suit me, Xtoxm?

Post 419:

Also, are you unable to provide your reasons for starting to find CR more suspicious (that you alluded to in your post 47), or was the NK choice the only factor?

Post 423:

I'll ask for a third time:

Also, are you unable to provide your reasons for starting to find CR more suspicious (that you alluded to in your post 47), or was the NK choice the only factor?

Post 427:

And Xtoxm, I'm still waiting for an answer. What about the kill "suits me?"

Post 431:

Xtoxm still hasn't told us his reasoning, even after repeated questioning. How would that NK benefit ClockworkRuse?

Post 452:

HoS

I'm sick of repeating myself. How does the night kill suit me?

This is ridiculous, Xtoxm. This shouldn't be like pulling teeth. Your refusal to answer a simple question ("WHAT ABOUT THE NIGHT-KILL SUITS CR?")is not only extremely scummy, but very distracting to the town as CR and I have had to ask the question eight times over the last fifty posts, when it should have been answered a long time ago.

[GIEFF]

I apologize if the quote-layering gets confusing, but I think it's the best way to respond to hambargaz.

I'll be addressing GIEFF's points on me in multiple posts, as I only have time in short bursts

Militant later provided his reasoning (you being lurky), but it was deemed weak (by myself and others).

This was my point I was making, he only gave a reason for me being scummy, AFTER he looked back with an "interest" in me. My point was, why wasn't there any points brought up on me to warrant that original reread with a bias on me. My point is that he DIDN'T have anything scummy on me prior to him rereading with that bias on me. My point is he reread with an intent of finding some dirt on me in particular with when he had no suspicions to justify it.

If Xtoxm ever does provide his reasoning, it will only be AFTER he said he found something scummy about CR, was asked eight times about it, and then voted CR, still without explaining his reasoning. To me, this situation seems similar to the situation with militant.

Militant said he found something scummy that you did, but when pressed, couldn't name it. Xtoxm has said the nightkill suits CR (obviously due to something he saw in Day 1), but when pressed, cannot name it.

And if you truly are suspicious of Xtoxm, instead of just saying

I echo GIEFF's comments on Xtoxm and insanepenguin.

(as you did in post 392), why not explain which thoughts of mine you echo? All of them? Which do you echo most strongly? Why? Why not? When reading back after a lynch, it isn't all that helpful to just see "I agree," but it is helpful to see

why

you agreed. And if you agree, where is your FOS? Where is your IGMEOY? Where is your attempt to press Xtoxm to answer the questions being asked of him? Where is your attempt to scumhunt?

All I see is an attempt to put attention on CR. I think your point about CR is a good one, but not when you completely abandon focus on someone you claimed to find suspicious. Especially with the irony of you doing to Xtoxm the very thing you are claiming CR of doing to Westbrook, i.e. ignoring/deflecting attacks against that poster.

You may have said that you agree Xtoxm is suspicious, but nothing else you have done has shown me that this is true.

I don't see the conviction you're talking about, hambargaz; can you explain? Xtoxm has shown a history of failing to answer questions until they're asked a third or fourth time and of providing little to no reasoning behind his votes. That is very wishy-washy in my eyes.

Are you asking me to defend Xtoxm's behaviour with examples? I don't think townies should defend anyone but themselves. I'll leave it to Xtoxm to defend himself against the points put against him. All I'm saying is my opinion. My interpretations of Xtoxm's posts is that they are concise but contain decisive action. I hate when people post pages and pages of content with lots of wishy washy positions and thought processes. It makes rereading harder and in turn is anti town.

I am not asking you to defend Xtoxm's behavior, I am asking you to defend your claim that his posts have been succinct and decisive. It is suspicious that you immediately assume I asked you to defend Xtoxm, when I clearly was not. This reminds me of your overly defensive response in post 208, where you leaped to unwarranted conclusions.


Also, in the above quote, you say you hate pages and pages of content with lots of thought processes, but that contradicts what you said back in post 141:

Longer discussion is always helpful. In addition to providing reads on everyone, it also leaves a posting history or paper trail that becomes very valuable later on in the game.

Why did you change your mind? Or is your position that longer discussion is only "always" helpful when someone other than Xtoxm provides it?

Looking at the first two posts on this page reminds me of these two posts:

88 (first vote for militant):

Asking someone else to create discussion strikes me as silly. I'm not sure if it's scummy.

I will

Vote Militant

.

I think that last post sounds kind of like he's forcing himself to say something.

You've actually posted an example of what I'm talking about. Obviously everyone saw Militant's post as forced, thats all you have to say. Place you're vote. No beating around the bush. He was the first to say it (showing initiative rather than being a sheep) and gave a strong position (Voted rather than FOS/no action).

I understand what you mean about Xtoxm's being "succinct" and "decisive" now; thank you for clarifying. But I disagree that this is pro-town, for reasons similar to those I quoted above (from your post 141).

95 (second vote for militant):

I agree, active lurking is scummy behaviour (as I learned in my last game)

Unvote

Vote: militant

I don't know if it was 95 seconds (I refresh the site often, but no that often!) Xtoxm's position was clear, Easily readable. I agreed, My position is clear. You can see I have the same attitude to posting as he does. I assumed it was obvious to everyone else. But I explained myself to people who questioned me about it in case they didn't see it.

I meant post 95, which was the second vote for militant (the first being Xtoxm's); sorry for the confusion.

The last time you echoed Xtoxm's thoughts, we lynched a townie. Maybe a new strategy is in order.

Hey well that's how it goes, I don't regret my vote. Are you implying I'm scummy because I agreed with Xtoxm's point on lurking? You could say that for everyone on Militant's wagon.

Not just because you agreed, but because you jumped on it immediately, and did not change your vote until the lynch, even after FIVE subsequent FOS's. You were also the only one who did not provide any original reasoning for voting for militant, simply saying "I agree."

The five FOS's without a vote change are especially odd considering you wrote this in post 51:

My last game, I didn't vote very often. I would FOS people to a point where my FOS's would accumulate enough to warrant a vote. This was construed as scummy, wishy-washy behaviour.

Also, why don't you regret your vote? I regret mine, because it was for someone who was on the same team as I am.




And finally:

IGMEOY, Clockwork Ruse

. hambargaz' point (that he found it odd that you did not find either infamous or Westbrook suspicious) was abundantly clear to me; your request for clarification looks to me like an attempt to confuse the town.

[GIEFF]

The five FOS's without a vote change are especially odd considering you wrote this in post 51:

My last game, I didn't vote very often. I would FOS people to a point where my FOS's would accumulate enough to warrant a vote. This was construed as scummy, wishy-washy behaviour.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... c&&start=0

I checked your "last game" you referenced above; you were mafia. I took the liberty of tracking your vote history in that game to see what you meant by your above quote. Here is your vote history in that game:

hambargarz

Vote: icemanE Post 10 (this was a random vote)
FOS: SabakuSands Post 37
FOS: iamausername Post 40
FOS: AGear2Ax Post 95
FOS: SabakuSands Post 150
unvote Post 222


Here is your vote history in this game:

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm Post 26 (this was a random vote)
Unvote, Vote: militant Post 95
FOS: ClockworkRuse Post 110
FOS: GIEFF Post 177
+1 FOS: militant Post 209
+1 FOS: _over9000 Post 248
+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 341

HoS hambargaz

[GIEFF]

I understand the distinction between militant's and Xtoxm's behavior. I happen to think they are more similar than you do, but I see your point.

You are being inconsistent in your position on the length of discussions. You had no qualifications when you said longer discussion is

always

good. That is what the word "always" means; no matter the qualifications. It is only now when you are trying to defend your claim that Xtoxm's short posts are pro-town that you reverse your position.

While I agree with your point that it's important to get everyone involved, this looks to me like an attempt on your part to end my line of questioning by suggesting that one-on-one posts are somehow anti-town. They are NOT anti-town. Everyone else can read what we write, and I expect them to respond to it, by questioning my reasoning, questioning your responses, or in another way.

I want to have a similar discussion with Xtoxm, but he refuses to answer my questions.

Also, why don't you regret your vote? I regret mine, because it was for someone who was on the same team as I am.

This is obviously true for all town, No one has to say this, why would you mention this about yourself?
IGMEOY: GIEFF

I said it because I am implying that the reason you did NOT regret your vote is that your vote was for someone not on your team. I noticed that you chose to attack me instead of answering the question, so I will ask it again; why don't you regret your vote? @ everyone else who voted for militant/_over/dipstick; do you regret your votes?

No one likes to lynch a townie, but that's part of the game. There are good parts because Dipstick (a confirmed townie) gave some info (before he was gagged) and a lead on Xtoxm has developed.

Why is it good that a lead on Xtoxm has developed? Didn't you say earlier that Xtoxm was low on your scumdar, even AFTER this lead developed? You claim that it is a good thing, yet you refuse to act on it. What other good things came out of the lynch? Do you feel that these good things offset the lost opportunity to have lynched scum?

Like I said in my previous post, this is my posting and voting style. You could probably post a similar case for anyone here who has played a game as scum.

You said nothing about playstyle. You said that this is what you did in your last game, and that others found it scummy. In any case, you can't deny being aware that this is considered scummy behavior; why did you do it again? You claimed earlier that Xtoxm is low on your scumdar, which implies that others are higher on it. Why haven't you voted for one of these people?

Look at AGear2ax's posts. He posted heaps with unclear reasoning and erratic actions. He also posted frequently essentially "flooding" the thread with "noise". It distorted the town's perception of time as pages of posts were created over the space of one real world day.

Do you feel that the same thing is happening in this game, hambargaz? If you feel that pages of empty content are anti-town, wouldn't you agree that Xtoxm refusing to answer questions is also anti-town, as it forces people to ask them over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?


What about everyone else; do you find the long posts in this game to be noise, or do you find them helpful?

[GIEFF]

Ham is right...Everyone has constant playstyle traits. Also, that is far too small a pool...If you had him doing that as scum, then a completely contrasting voting style as town, you may have a case...But still, I don't think voting style is really useful for scumhunting in the first place...Not on it's own, anyway.

Really, Xtoxm? That's all you choose to say? You claim one small part of my case is invalid, ignore the rest of it, and AGAIN refuse to answer the question that has been asked of you eight (now nine) times.

WHAT ABOUT THE NIGHTKILL SUITED CLOCKWORKRUSE?

Would it help if all questions towards you were asked in this manner, Xtoxm? Would you have an easier time answering if you were closer to being lynched?


ham has said that your explanation for the CR-vote is different than militant's explanation for the ham-vote because you provided a reason whereas militant did not. I disagree; what you provided is not a reason, it is an excuse. It does not become a reason until you explain WHY this makes CR suspicious. If I were to say "I am voting Xtoxm because of something I saw on Day 1" would you call that a valid reason? I fail to see how such a claim is functionally different than saying "I am voting Xtoxm."


I have two more questions for you, Xtoxm, so please don't go back into your lurk-shell yet.



The first question is one I asked back in post 433, and which I will repeat here:

Ham - For same reasons as before, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

And what reasons were these? Can you link me to the post? As far as I can tell, all you've said on the subject was "I'm not sus of ham" with no reasoning whatsoever to explain why, even after you were IGMEOY'd by ham.

For the second time, what reasons did you give for finding ham town? I've read the whole thread thoroughly, and cannot find the reasons you are referring to.



My third question to you, Xtoxm:

Why did you vote for ClockworkRuse? It seems odd to vote after saying this

But having taking a closer look at this game tonight i'm not really as sure of anything as I was before.

immediately after the only excuse you've given for finding him suspicious.

[GIEFF]

EBWOP: Sorry, messed up the quote in my "second question" above.


Here is the correct version:

Ham - For same reasons as before, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

And what reasons were these? Can you link me to the post? As far as I can tell, all you've said on the subject was "I'm not sus of ham" with no reasoning whatsoever to explain why, even after you were IGMEOY'd by ham.

For the second time, what reasons did you give for finding ham town? I've read the whole thread thoroughly, and cannot find the reasons you are referring to.

[GIEFF]

Don't expect to get a good reaction from me talking to me like that. It will have the opposite effect. I might take a look at the rest of your post tomorrow.

I apologize if I was rude.

But after you failed to answer a question eight times, I felt I needed to try a new method to get your attention.

[GIEFF]

Re: longer discussion. Maybe the confusion is the use of the word longer. I was speaking more to the length and number of posts; were you talking about length with regard to time? It still looks inconsistent to me to say that longer discussion is pro-town, yet claim that Xtoxm's short posts that limit the potential for future discussion are pro-town as well.

-----------------

Re: the two questions I asked that you think look like padding. Both these questions are related to points I am still not completely clear on. The fact that you answered by quoting your original points (not adding new discussion on your end) and claiming that any further discussion is anti-town (trying to stop any new discussion from my end) is highly suspicious, as it looks like you are trying to hide something.

I will stop asking questions when things are clearer to me and I feel like the question has been answered to my satisfaction, not when I am threatened that further questioning is anti-town.

1st question (re: voting patterns)

: these were habits you had as scum. Your motivation for FOS'ing and voting people would be completely different if you are town in this game, so it's odd that you would fall into the same habit as before, especially when you consciously realize that doing so looks scummy. The burden of proof is on you to explain why you've done this again. Why did you leave your vote on militant all day, even after repeated FOS's of others?

2nd question (re: you not voting for someone higher on your scumlist)

: this is similar to the first question, in that it relates to your voting behavior. It was also intended to clarify to me your thoughts about Xtoxm, especially related to your claim that you do not regret your vote.

You said that "some good" came from the lynch, yet the only good thing you mentioned was the lead on Xtoxm. My point is that if you don't find Xtoxm very scummy, then you must not think it is a very good lead, which in turn would mean that little good came from the lynch, and therefore you should regret your vote. It is still unclear to me why you do not regret it.

And I will ask again;

do others who voted for militant/_over/Dipstick regret their votes?

---------------------

I have another point, ham, relating to what I perceive as your unwillingness to interact with Xtoxm:


To show you what I mean, I'll link to three examples.


1. Instead of commenting on my Post 262, you threw out your reverse-OMGUS IGMEOY on him for an unrelated subject, which as far as I believe was your first real interaction with him all game.

2. In my Post 356 I make the case that Xtoxm has done very little scumhunting. Your next post in the game was to talk about the insanepenguin replacing into the game and to question his (extremely poor) logic after he FOS'd Xtoxm; you made no mention of my post 356.

3. When Xtoxm in Post 407 said

ham - For same reasons as before, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

, why didn't you comment? You IGMEOY'd him for saying this once, yet completely ignored it when he did it a second time; this is inconsistent. Not to mention the fact that the second time he says this is scummier in my eyes, because he claims he provided earlier reasons for finding you town, yet I don't believe he has

(still waiting for you to provide them, Xtoxm)

.



Now here is your post explaining why you find CR's behavior suspicious:

I've been rereading, gathering thoughts on various people and I've noticed something about CR. CR has jumped on suspicious behaviour the whole thread but steered well clear of discussions regarding infamouseace2's anti-town behaviour. I've recently noticed a similar vibe in his behaviour to Westbrooke.

Do you agree that you have exhibited similar behavior toward Xtoxm up until the point I accused you of doing so?



I would like to hear from CarnCarn, Westbrook, and SilverPhoenix (or his replacement); you three have been quiet for a few days now.

[GIEFF]

One more point, ham.

Here is your IGMEOY of Xtoxm:

I'm not sus of Ham.

Any particular reason why this is? That's a pretty strong statement considering that no one is above suspicion to a townie.

IGMEOY: Xtoxm

"No one is above suspicion to a townie." I agree.


Now, here is part of my Post 210

GIEFF appeared to be defending you (

militant

). In the face of the evidence he appears to have an unusual bias to innocence regarding you. I know everyone has their own opinion, If GIEFF provided rock solid reasons that would have been acceptable otherwise, it looks like he's defending you.

hambargaz, I have already addressed this, in post 178.

Post 178:

hambargaz - it looks scummy to me (

CR and uri attacking militant for unvoting me

) because the logic behind it is faulty. The case against militant was based on him changing his opinion, but as I said, there was no opinion to change - it was a random vote.

I never said militant is innocent, or even looks innocent, I simply said that the unvote does not seem scummy.

Do you disagree?

In post 213, you answered:

may have given the impression that I got the impression you were saying militant was innocent. I know this isn't what you said. Given that the evidence in my eyes, points fingers at militant, I may have misinterpreted your post. But I also didn't mean that you were saying he's certain innocent, I couldn't think of a better word at the time. What I meant was more like "innocent in relation to his accusers".

Obviously you would not say he's innocent (how would you know right?).

(emphasis mine)

You assumed that I didn't know if militant was town, which means you assumed by extension that I am town, right? Why?

"No one is above suspicion to a townie."

[GIEFF]

I've already answered this, There's nothing more to say, other than to repeat myself, ie that's how I play.

That is fine; I kept asking because I was not satisfied by your answer, and still find it suspicious. You've said old habits die hard, yet I only see one other game of yours on this site. Seeing a game where you voted in a similar manner as town would do a lot to ease my suspicion; this is why I said the burden of proof was on you.

I'm not sure why you are asking this question, unless you are implying that I'm scummy by behaving as I was before, whilst being conscious it was seen as scummy behaviour.

Early in the game, you said that you did something last game that was scummy, when you were scum. You've done the same thing this game. Let's not get into the WIFOM aspects you mention; my point is that you've done the same thing twice as scum, and as I can't find any games on this site with you as town, I've informed you that the burden of proof is on you to convince me that your voting pattern is a hambargaz habit rather than a hambargaz-as-scum habit.

Do you feel threatened? I didn't say your questioning was anti-town, quite the contrary actually. I did mention that the repeated questions on points already answered was on the edge and could be seen as padding to beef up any case against me (if you were indeed trying to build up a case on me), but

I didn't say they were anti-town.

You implied they were anti-town, as in your below quote:

I will add this, you're questioning on me, is generally good town play.

but

the last 2 questions on me above this, Where I've answered with my own posts, are verging on the edge.

Yes, I took this as a threat. I interpreted this as you saying "Questioning me is OK, but as soon as I give an answer, do not question me about this further." I was not satisfied by the answers, and so I asked the questions again. Answering to my satisfaction or saying "I have nothing else to say" will end the questioning.

In fact, I would say it's somewhat of a scum tell to talk about you're previous votes that way.
+1 FOS: GIEFF

You were the first to do this, not me. You said "I do not regret my vote" in response to me saying that following Xtoxm is not a good strategy. I only brought up the fact that I do regret my vote to contrast my thoughts with yours. Once again, you FOS someone for something you yourself have done.

I also think GIEFF is tunnelling a lot on hambargarz in recent posts and several of his points seem like reaches by aggressive scum, although ham is on my suspicious list at the moment, but well below xtoxm. I will try to give specific examples from recent posts, but I am currently in a bind for time, so expect this to come later at some point.

The fact that Xtoxm refuses to answer any questions makes questioning him difficult, so I am focusing on who I find next-most suspicious. Please do give specific examples when you have time.

Also CarnCarn, do you regret your vote for _over?

[GIEFF]

Welcome, cunninghmanronald. I don't know what you mean by a list of names, but these are the 7 players still alive:

GIEFF
cunninghamronald
CarnCarn
hambargarz
Westbrook_Owns_U
ClockworkRuse
Xtoxm


Can you read through the thread and post your thoughts on everyone?

[GIEFF]

CarnCarn, when you get a chance, could you go into more detail about which of my points seem like reaches by aggressive scum, and why?

I also think GIEFF is tunnelling a lot on hambargarz in recent posts and several of his points seem like reaches by aggressive scum, although ham is on my suspicious list at the moment, but well below xtoxm. I will try to give specific examples from recent posts, but I am currently in a bind for time, so expect this to come later at some point.

Also, if hambargaz is on your suspicion list but "well below" Xtoxm, that implies you have at least 3 or 4 people on your suspicion list. Could you present some analysis or evidence to show why you feel that one (or more) of the people on your list between ham and Xtoxm is (are) suspicious?


You still here, Westbrook?

[GIEFF]

I'll start by addressing Xtoxm:


Xtoxm, I'm going to bold and underline the questions I'd like you to answer. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snotty, I just think this will make it easier to glean from a long post the points I would like you to answer.

For the second time, what reasons did you give for finding ham town?

Well the way he's acted looks like genuine pro-town interests, and genuine attempts to scumhunt. I'm not sure if I can explain it much better than that. Along with a few small things along the way that make me think he's town. Suffice to say, he has me convinced he's town, and at this point I trust him.

Thanks for the reply, Xtoxm. You said earlier that you think hambargaz is town "for the same reasons as before," yet had not provided any reasons up until this point:

Ham -

For same reasons as before

, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

I find it odd that in the above-quoted post (407) you presented new reasoning (although not always concrete) for everybody except for ham, and even more odd that you mistakenly wrote that you had already provided this discussion.

Here is what you said about me in post 407:

Gieff - Town. He's doing a lot of work, and a lot of stuff he's done looks to me

genuine attempts to scum hunt and help town.

I would find it hard to see him as scum.

And here is what you said about hambargarz above:

Well the way he's acted looks like

genuine pro-town interests, and genuine attempts to scumhunt.

Xtoxm, if this is really why you find hambargarz pro-town, why didn't you say so in post 407 (when you said the exact same thing about me), instead of implying you had already given different reasons, when you had in fact given no reasoning at all?

And no, saying ham has you convinced that he is town does

not

suffice. If you are convinced he is town, you should be trying to convince those who are not convinced (i.e. me). Telling me you are convinced achieves nothing; it is an unverifiable claim, and does not provide anything to attack or defend. Is your point just that you haven't seen him do anything scummy?

Xtoxm, do you have any comment on the points I have brought up about ham?

Why did you vote for ClockworkRuse?

Well, not just for the night-kill, also looking back over his posts, when I initially hadn't suspected him, I found I wasn't really seeing much from him. He hadn't done anything directly scummy, as such, which is why I wouldn't have noticed first time round, but I didn't see anything that really made me think he was town either. This, along with my nightkill reasoning (which is only a back-up, really) is when I initially mentioned my suspicion of him. Shortly after, I decided to vote him. I can't remember if this was because I hadn't found anywhere better to put it, or because I disliked a reaction of his. Possibly a mixture of both. His subsequent kick-back looks construed to me, I think he's scum and he's attacking me because he knows i'm largely viewed as scummy, and he can easily get me mislynched, so there's no point in trying to do anything else.

Night-kill thing. It's really not that big of a deal, and it pretty much applies to me just as much, but I wasn't expecting that as a kill, I think someone picked up a cop-tell from him, so expect it more from an experienced player like CR, whereas a pair of newbie-scum I would more expect to kill a vocal player. I can see CR being more comfortable in that kind of a situation.

I see an inconsistency in your reasoning. As far as hambargarz is concerned, you say he looks town because he hasn't done anything scummy (at least that is the reasoning I induce from your earlier point), although you can't name anything that looks especially pro-town. But when it comes to CR, you say he looks scummy even though he hasn't done anything scummy, because you don't see anything that made you think he was protown.

Xtoxm, if you feel that neither player has shown much scummy or pro-town behavior, why are you so sure ham is town and CR is scum?

If CR really is scum, I need to see the same thought processes and logic you used to come to that conclusion (even if this logic is based on your gut feeling, I need to see the posts that gave you this gut feeling), or else there is no way to get me to see it.

Xtoxm, could you look back at CR's posts again, and try to link to (via quoting) the things you saw that convinced you he was scum?

-----------------
Now, on to hambargarz:

I'll let the town decide on how to take a few of your points raised. Some were valid, but some were "on the edge"

It looks to me like you are trying to lead the town here; you tell the town to decide for itself, but in the very next sentence you tell the town that not all my questions were valid.

--

I've found two recent inconsistencies between your words and your voting patterns, ham:

#1:

Whilst I agree GIEFF's play has been very pro-town, I wouldn't say he has been the most pro-town.

You have FOS'd me twice, IGMEOY'd me once, and said this about me in Post 208:

I believe I already have an FOS on you. I haven't voted for you because you're summaries smell townie to me making militant the more likely scum, but I can't ignore things like this, coupled with you're defending of militant. militant should answer for himself, only scum have a reason to defend someone.

(which implies I am the second-most-scummy in your eyes). If my play has been "very pro-town," why have you shown so much suspicion towards me?


#2:
In post 457, you said:

To be honest Xtoxm is low on my scumdar.

and in post 490, you FOS'd Xtoxm for defending you, stating that this isn't the first time he has done so. Am I supposed to believe that Xtoxm went from "low on your scumdar" all the way to an FOS simply because he defended you again? If he's done it before, and you find it scummy, why was he low on your scumdar in post 457?

--

Another question, ham; why did you wait until recently to vote for Westbrook? It looks to me like you didn't want to be the first to do so, because you voted in your next post after another player voted for him. As in day one, you used the words "I agree" shortly before your vote statement, and were again the second on the wagon. Your implication that you are doing so to get him back into the game strikes me as an excuse, does not change the fact that you could have done this pages ago, and will not have its intended effect as Westbrook is V/LA until the 6th.

--

I will summarize the points I brought up against ham that remain valid, in general order of what I feel is scummiest:

1. ham expressed very little disagreement with Xtoxm and had very little interaction with him throughout the thread (see the middle of Post 471 for examples.
   
2. ham found militant's failure to specify what was scummy about ham suspicious, but not so for Xtoxm's failure to specify what was scummy about CR
   
3. ham has voted/FOS'd in a similar manner to the only other game he's played on this site, in which he was scum
   
4. ham followed Xtoxm's vote to a mislynch on day one
   
5. ham recently voted for Westbrook without presenting any new reasoning; why didn't he vote pages ago?

CarnCarn does seem to agree with you that my questioning is verging on anti-town, ham, so I'll address his points in my next post:

[GIEFF]

IMO, the two situations are not that similar at all. Xtoxm's comment about the NK could be interpreted as protown reaction-fishing on his part, and there is nothing to suggest that he would have "read the thread with a bias," since his explanation has very little to do with content from this game. What makes this a reach is that you are taking the two cases to be similar (perhaps intentionally) to make ham look suspicious/buddying for not expressing his suspicion on Xtoxm.

I do feel that the situations are similar. You say that Xtoxm's comment "could be" interpreted as pro-town reaction fishing, but this is not the reason hambargarz gave. It is the way

hambargarz

viewed Xtoxm's comment that is relevant here, not the way an arbitrary person could potentially view it, right? My point is only a reach if the cases are not similar, and I feel that they are, as I will try to explain again below:

Clock - Initially I wasn't suspecting him, but now I am a bit more. The nightkill suits Clock, from the way I see, although that's probably not a useful thing to be thinking about.

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

I noticed something in the post before the quoted one that I didn't like. I am going to re read tommorow but I am also going to adress the thing I noticed.

1. Xtoxm said he found something scummy but did not mention what it was
2. militant said he found something scummy but did not mention what it was
3. Xtoxm's post was scummy because he said CR was suspicious without explaining why
4. militant's post was scummy because he said hambargaz was suspicious without explaining why
5. Xtoxm's post was attacking someone who had been attacking Xtoxm
6. militant's post was attacking someone who had been attacking militant

My point is not that the two situations are completely analogous; my point is that the situations are analogous enough (the similarities are described above) that I feel a townie would see the behavior of both players as scummy, and the fact that hambargarz found militant scummy but Xtoxm not seems inconsistent to me.

Do you disagree with any of the above 6 points? If you don't disagree, is it simply a matter of degree (i.e. you feel both players' behavior was scummy, but militant's much more so than Xtoxm's)? If you do disagree, which points do you disagree with, and why?

This is not a useful scumhunting question at all, IMO, because, no matter which way someone answers, it will only be a null-tell. Town can say "Yes, I regret it" or "No, I don't regret it because it was the best lynch we had and would give us the most info, etc."; scum can say "Oh, of course I regret it" or "No, etc." Regardless of how they answer, you can't really get any useful info. What makes this question a reach is that you imply something that isn't there simply because the other person's (ham's) answer is different from yours.

Again, this is only a reach if your opinion (that what I am implying isn't there) is correct. It is my opinion that something IS there. Here is the context in which hambargarz originally said it:

The last time you echoed Xtoxm's thoughts, we lynched a townie. Maybe a new strategy is in order.

Hey well that's how it goes, I don't regret my vote. Are you implying I'm scummy because I agreed with Xtoxm's point on lurking? You could say that for everyone on Militant's wagon.

Not just because you agreed, but because you jumped on it immediately, and did not change your vote until the lynch, even after FIVE subsequent FOS's. You were also the only one who did not provide any original reasoning for voting for militant, simply saying "I agree."

Even if ham doesn't regret his vote, shouldn't he regret following Xtoxm to a mislynch? ham said he didn't regret his vote because it was the correct play, but following another player is NOT the correct play, and should be regretted. I agree that the discussion on regretting one's prior vote is degenerating into semantics, but a discussion on regretting one's strategy and logic on the previous day should remain a good one, and I feel it is pro-town to pressure hambargarz if he continues to echo others' thoughts without adding any new content (as he did with Xtoxm on the top of Page 18, and as he did with Amished in his recent vote for Westbrook).

Well, since IC roles are random, statistically there's a 1/81 chance that both are.

At this point in the game, it's 1/15, not 1/81. There are 6 players left of unknown alignment to a non-cop townie, and 2/6 * 1/5 = 1/15.

[GIEFF]

Here's vote history:

By Chronology

Post Number

Poster

Vote
Post 19

Elennaro

FoS: clockworkruse
Post 22

infamousace2

FoS: ClockworkRuse
Post 26

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm
Post 28

militant

Vote: GIEFF
Post 30

urielzyx

VOTE: Elannaro
Post 32

infamousace2

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 41

Elennaro

Vote: urielzyx Unvote. UnFoS.
Post 43

RealityFan

Vote: Gieff
Post 57

urielzyx

Unvote
Post 82

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 88

Xtoxm

Vote Militant
Post 95

hambargarz

Unvote Vote: militant
Post 96

ClockworkRuse

Unvote Vote hambargarz
Post 97

Elennaro

Vote: RealityFan
Post 110

hambargarz

FOS: ClockworkRuse
Post 121

urielzyx

Vote: infamousace2
Post 137

infamousace2

Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 146

GIEFF

FoS militant
Post 157

Elennaro

Unvote
Post 169

militant

Unvote
Post 171

ClockworkRuse

Vote: Militant
Post 177

hambargarz

FOS: GIEFF
Post 189

GIEFF

vote: infamousace2
Post 190

Elennaro

FoS: militant.
Post 204

CarnCarn

Unvote Random Vote: Xtoxm FoS: Elennaro FoS: militant Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 209

hambargarz

+1 FOS: militant
Post 220

Xtoxm

Unvote Vote Inf
Post 230

CarnCarn

Unvote:Elennaro
Post 235

_over9000

FOS: ClockworkRuse
Post 240

_over9000

vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 248

hambargarz

+1 FOS: _over9000
Post 252

CarnCarn

Vote: _over9000
Post 254

GIEFF

HoS over9000
Post 256

ClockworkRuse

HoS over9000
Post 281

ClockworkRuse

Mod: Any responses from those prods?
Post 284

Westbrook_Owns_U

FoS: _over9000 FoS: Xtoxm
Post 287

SilverPhoenix

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 304

GIEFF

unvote Westbrook (previously infamous) <BR>vote _over9000 FoS Westbrook
Post 305

ClockworkRuse

Unvote
Post 318

Dipstick

Unvote
Post 322

ClockworkRuse

FoS GIEFF
Post 341

hambargarz

+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 342

Dipstick

FoS Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 356

GIEFF

HoS Xtoxm
Post 359

insanepenguin02

FOS: Xtoxm
Post 376

Dipstick

FoS: xtoxm
Post 378

insanepenguin02

Vote: Dipstick
Post 379

Westbrook_Owns_U

Vote: insanepenguin02
Post 382

Xtoxm

Unvote Vote Dipstick
Post 385

Dipstick

MASSIVE HoS: xtoxm
Post 391

GIEFF

Vote Xtoxm
Post 431

GIEFF

FoS hambargaz
Post 451

Xtoxm

Vote CR
Post 452

ClockworkRuse

HoS Xtoxm
Post 456

GIEFF

HoS hambargaz
Post 467

ClockworkRuse

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 470

hambargarz

FOS: Xtoxm
Post 474

hambargarz

+1 FOS: GIEFF
Post 485

ClockworkRuse

Major HoS Xtoxm
Post 494

Amished

Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 500

hambargarz

Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U

By Character

insanepenguin02

FoS: clockworkruse

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 19
Vote: urielzyx, Unvote., UnFoS.

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 41
Vote: RealityFan

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 97
Unvote

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 157
FoS: militant.

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 190
FOS: Xtoxm Post 359
Vote: Dipstick Post 378

Westbrook_Owns_U

FoS: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 22
Vote: Xtoxm

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 32
Unvote: Xtoxm

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 137
FoS: _over9000, FoS: Xtoxm Post 284
Vote: insanepenguin02 Post 379

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm Post 26
Unvote, Vote: militant Post 95
FOS: ClockworkRuse Post 110
FOS: GIEFF Post 177
+1 FOS: militant Post 209
+1 FOS: _over9000 Post 248
+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 341
FOS: Xtoxm Post 470
+1 FOS: GIEFF Post 474
Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 500

Dipstick

Vote: GIEFF

(Posted as militant)

Post 28
Unvote

(Posted as militant)

Post 169
FOS: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as _over9000)

Post 235
vote: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as _over9000)

Post 240
Unvote Post 318
FoS Westbrook_Owns_U Post 342
FoS: xtoxm Post 376
MASSIVE HoS: xtoxm Post 385

Amished

VOTE: Elannaro

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 30
Unvote

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 57
Vote: infamousace2

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 121
Vote: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as SilverPhoenix)

Post 287

Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 494

CarnCarn

Vote: Gieff

(Posted as RealityFan)

Post 43
Unvote, Random Vote: Xtoxm, FoS: Elennaro, FoS: militant, Unvote: Xtoxm Post 204
Unvote:Elennaro Post 230
Vote: _over9000 Post 252

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 82
Unvote, Vote hambargarz Post 96
Vote: Militant Post 171
HoS over9000 Post 256
Mod: Any responses from those prods? Post 281
Unvote Post 305
FoS GIEFF Post 322
HoS Xtoxm Post 452
Vote: Xtoxm Post 467
Major HoS Xtoxm Post 485

Xtoxm

Vote Militant Post 88
Unvote Vote Inf Post 220
Unvote Vote Dipstick Post 382
Vote CR Post 451

GIEFF

FoS militant Post 146
vote: infamousace2 Post 189
HoS over9000 Post 254
unvote Westbrook (previously infamous) <BR>vote _over9000, FoS Westbrook Post 304
HoS Xtoxm Post 356
Vote Xtoxm Post 391
FoS hambargaz Post 431
HoS hambargaz Post 456

[GIEFF]

Per hambargaz' suggestion, I analyzed Xtoxm's and ClockworkRuse's past games, as these are the only two posters who have been here since the game's start.


Xtoxm: In this game, there are simply votes; no FOS's or HOS's. There are about 125 posts for each time Xtoxm change his vote. There was no random vote.

In Open 95, Xtoxm was town. Here is his vote history in that game:

Xtoxm

Xtoxm

Vote SC
Unvote Vote Crazy
Vote Crazy


Although this only goes until post 29, the pattern is the same as in this game. There was a random vote.

In Mini 688, Xtoxm was town. Here is his vote history in that game:

Xtoxm

Vote RBT Post 6
Unvote Vote Juls Post 57
Unvote Vote Rhinox Post 104
Unvote vote OP Post 145
Unvote Vote BG Post 218
Unvote Vote BG Post 273
Unvote Post 365
Vote Volkan Post 487
Confirm Vote: Volkan Post 564
Vote EA Post 593
Unvote Vote CKD Post 649
Unvote Vote Pyro Post 678


Again, very similar to this game. There was no random vote, and 85 posts per vote change.


In Mafia 83, Xtoxm was mafia. Here is his voting pattern:

Xtoxm

Vote K7 Post 10
Unvote Vote BM Post 140
Vote Alvinz Post 374
Vote Panzer Post 402
Unvote Post 412
Vote Panzer Post 534
Vote Reclusion Post 609
Unvote Vote K7 Post 677
Vote Bio Post 716
Unvote Vote Xtoxm Post 732

Once again, similar to this game, with 7 new votes in 732 posts, i.e. 105 posts per vote. There was no random vote.


In Mini 680, Xtoxm was town.

Xtoxm

Vote Zazier Post 129
Unvote Vote Xtoxm Post 286
Unvote Post 301
Unvote Vote TSN Post 354
Unvote Vote Zazier Post 363
Unvote Post 435
Vote Zazier Post 438
Unvote Vote KOC Post 466
Vote KoC Post 545
Unvote Vote Ice Post 629
Unvote Vote Xtoxm Post 758

No random vote, and 95 posts per vote change.





I don't really see a pattern in Clockwork's voting in this game. There are 3 new votes in 500 posts, for about 170 posts per new vote. There was no random vote (unless you count his self-vote).


In Mini 655, CR was town. Vote history:

ClockworkRuse

HoS Danger Post 119
Vote: Danger Post 301
FoS Max Post 360
Vote: Raider Post 546

This is about 230 posts per new vote, with no random vote.

In Newbie 621, CR was mafia, but replaced in late and didn't have any votes, fos or hos.


In Mini 619, CR was town:

ClockworkRuse

Vote Muerrto Post 9
FoS Post 83
Unvote Post 105
FoS Post 120
FoS, FoS Post 318
Vote Charter. Post 380
Unvote. Post 389
FOS., Vote: Muerrto Post 504
Unvote Post 526
Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 587
Vote: Darla Post 638
Vote: BB Post 699
Unvote Post 703
Vote BB Post 716
Vote: charter Post 795
Unvote Post 806
Vote: Charter Post 815


116 posts per vote, with a random vote, and FOS's sprinkled in.


I don't have a good mafia game of CR's to look at, but his past town play seems generally consistent with his play in this game. Xtoxm's play in this game seems consistent with his past play as both town and as mafia, lending credence to ham's claim that the multiple FOS's is just his playstyle, and Xtoxm's defense of ham on this point. I still think it's a little fishy that they are SO similar, but I see Xtoxm's point about playstyle being constant no matter your role.


Amished, I will work on adjusting the vote history to do what you asked.

[GIEFF]

I decided not to re-post the vote history, as it would just add to the clutter. My vote of Xtoxm is the first Day 2 action.

Also, I don't think the statistical argument holds any water, as ANY potential scumpair could be dismissed with the "14/15" argument, not to mention the fact it ignores the relative scumminess of each character. We should not assume that the two IC's being a scumpair is any more or less likely than if there were no IC's.

[GIEFF]

What do you mean by "not on the wagon?" CarnCarn voted for _over.

Westbrook did not vote for _over, though. Westbrook also has not voted since day 1. Why did you focus on CarnCarn and not Westbrook?


I wrote a macro to go through the games for me, so it's not as much work as it looks like.

[GIEFF]

Why did you feel the need to explain your vote, CarnCarn?

[GIEFF]

Basically, I just elaborated on what you said.

You elaborated on a detail that was not at all relevant to the point I was trying to make, which was about Clockwork, not about you.

Do you think it's odd that Clockwork focused on you instead of on Westbrook? If so, why did you choose to focus on explaining your reasoning rather than on why Clockwork didn't focus on Westbrook, especially after having been accused of having a blind spot for Westbrook earlier on Day 2?


Still waiting on Xtoxm and ham to answer my post 506. How many games are you in at the moment, Xtoxm?

[GIEFF]

What do you mean by "not on the wagon?" CarnCarn voted for _over.

Westbrook did not vote for _over, though. Westbrook also has not voted since day 1. Why did you focus on CarnCarn and not Westbrook?


I wrote a macro to go through the games for me, so it's not as much work as it looks like.

I thought I saw that he unvoted and wasn't voting at the hammer yesterday. That was my mistake. My main point about that is I am slightly suspicious of anyone who wasn't on the wagon yesterday, thinking that it may have been an attempt for scum to say "I didn't vote for a town player! I'm not scum."

My apologies CarnCarn, I just misread the vote history.

Looking forward to Xtoxm detoxing and getting to our questions.

Why did you answer the part of my question about CarnCarn, but ignore the part about Westbrook? Are you slightly suspicious of Westbrook?

[GIEFF]

Been out wedding planning this weekend; I will try to catch up on everything by tomorrow.

[GIEFF]

Well, I knew i'd already discussed my thoughts on Ham. I thought there was no need to say more. I guess there was.

Please link me to the post where you did this.

I was unable to find it after three re-reads of the entire thread.

ham expressed very little disagreement with Xtoxm and had very little interaction with him throughout the thread (see the middle of Post 471 for examples.

So? How much interaction are you expecting between 2 players that think each other are town?

It's clear you didn't look at Post 471. It goes beyond the level of just limited interaction.

ham followed Xtoxm's vote to a mislynch on day one

Incorrect. I hammered. Also, why are you saying that this, in itself, is scummy? A townie cannot be lynched with several townie votes on him. This on it's own means nothing. Why did you feel the need to say it?

You were first to vote militant. ham was second, using the same reasoning you did. This, in itself, may not be scummy, but coupled with the odd behavior you two have shown toward each other throughout the thread, it becomes more so.


If you could try to do this, Xtoxm, it would be a huge help to the town:

Xtoxm, could you look back at CR's posts again, and try to link to (via quoting) the things you saw that convinced you he was scum?

What specifically about the way he reacted to your vote made you think he was scum? Show me the post. Also, show me a post that made you vote for him in the first place. I need to see SOMETHING. Even if you can't explain exactly why you find CR scummy, just the post that gave you the gut reaction would be helpful.


---------------------------------

Again, I find it interesting that you interpret me stating my thoughts as me manipulating the town, presumably, against you. You're attack kind of betrays you're train of thought. It is as if you are worried about the town being swayed by my arguments.

Not at all. You told the town to decide if my points were not constructive, and in the very next sentence you told the town that my points were in fact not constructive, in essence deciding for them. Also, this is not an "argument," this is an attempt by you to wriggle out of my questions.

I'll let the town decide on whether or not hambargarz was attempting to wriggle out of my questions by appealing to the majority. He didn't at first, but in the below quote, he did:

I'll let the town decide on how to take a few of your points raised. Some were valid, but some were "on the edge"

If your question is actually you refuting any of my points you should be a bit more specific, rather than just ask "why have I shown suspicion towards you?"

I saw an inconsistency, and pointed it out. You claim I am "very pro-town," yet have IGMEOY'd AND FOS'd me TODAY. TODAY. The only reason I can see to FOS someone you feel is pro-town is to get them to back off. Here are some things you have said about me TODAY, the same day you aside that you agree my play is "very pro-town":

1. This is obviously true for all town, No one has to say this, why would you mention this about yourself?
   

   IGMEOY: GIEFF

2. I should ask you why you DO regret you're vote, would you have voted differently? why didn't you say anything, why DID you place that vote? In fact, I would say it's somewhat of a scum tell to talk about you're previous votes that way. +1 FOS: GIEFF

3. It is as if you are manipulating me and Xtoxm into defending each other's actions, possibly setting up a scum pair.

4. I wouldn't drop the possibility that GIEFF is scum trying very divert attention to other players.

5. "on the edge" as in those last points were pushing it (towards scummy sensationalisation). I'll let the town decide on how to take a few of your points raised. Some were valid, but some were "on the edge"

6. You're attack kind of betrays you're train of thought. It is as if you are worried about the town being swayed by my arguments. Arguments, I might add, that you alone have solicited. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be worried about from the other players scrutiny.

Wouldn't it be more constructive play to let each player defend their own case rather than pressure other people to?

I have asked you to discuss Xtoxm to discuss the points I brought up about you (and vice-versa) because I have found your lack of interaction suspicious, as I mentioned in Post 471.

I noticed something in the post before the quoted one that I didn't like. I am going to re read tommorow but I am also going to adress the thing I noticed.

Here we have the reason, but it's important to note the context. This reason was given AFTER his reread, and AFTER he was pressured to answer for himself.

What??? He says in that very post that he is going to re-read tomorrow. Why did you say this reason was given AFTER the re-read? You are misrepresenting the situation.

I will repeat a point I raised that I don't think you answered, ham:

In post 457, you said:

To be honest Xtoxm is low on my scumdar.

and in post 490, you FOS'd Xtoxm for defending you, stating that this isn't the first time he has done so. Am I supposed to believe that Xtoxm went from "low on your scumdar" all the way to an FOS simply because he defended you again?

If he's done it before, and you find it scummy, why was he low on your scumdar in post 457?

CarnCarn: Can you tell me why Xtoxm is you're number one suspect? is it only because of his delayed answer to GIEFF/CR's question?

Why do YOU feel Xtoxm is suspicious? Is it ONLY because of his delayed answers to questions? If not, why did you assume this was CarnCarn's reason? Why would you even phrase the question that way?

Unvote

Vote: hambargarz

[GIEFF]

OK, I think I'm satisfied for now, hambargarz. I was leaning back toward town on you a couple of posts ago, but wanted to see how you would react to a vote. While I don't agree with you on all your answers or summaries of past action, I do believe that what you are saying is truly your opinion.

Also, the fact that nobody came to your defense (not even Xtoxm, until I prodded him to) or posted much of anything else at all while we were going back and forth makes me think the scum were content to let me continue to burrow in on a townie.

Unvote

Re: CarnCarn and your question for him. It looked odd based on the phrasing, and the word "only," as if you were suggesting more reason was needed, which looked like a defense of Xtoxm. I did not perceive this as a scum-hunt poke to CarnCarn, and I'm sorry if I ruined it.

In any case, CarnCarn, can you answer the question? Why you are suspicious of Xtoxm?

I am going to try to tone down my post lengths for now; I think all these posts and "quote wars" (as CarnCarn put it) are making it tough for others to follow the game (or at least giving them a valid excuse to lurk, which is also bad).

I would like to hear some original thoughts from other players. I don't feel like much has been accomplished in the last week or two, which is partly my fault due to taking so long to be persuaded by ham's defense, but I hope we can pick it up from here on out.

[GIEFF]

Xtoxm, at one point I counted a stretch of

40 posts

in other games while we were waiting for your answers in this one.

[GIEFF]

On Thursday, Dec 11, 2008, at 2:52 pm, in post 382:

I'd rather lynch West, but with a VT claim:

Unvote Vote Dipstick

Your previous post in this thread was on Monday, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:23 PM, in post 355:

I've contibuted plenty. It's only in the last week or two that the game is starting to actually get away from me, but even then I don't think by much.

And there were 40 posts in between in other games. Notice how my very next post after your post 355 (which initiated your 3-day lurk) was attacking you. You did not respond when you returned to the thread 3 days later, instead choosing to quick-hammer, stifling discussion on both Dipstick AND yourself.

I wasn't avoiding this game at any point.

Bovine Feces.

You say you were not avoiding the thread, yet after a 3-day absence in which you posted 40 times in other threads, you managed to return less than 90 minutes after Dipstick hit L-1 and

just 5 minutes after he VT-claimed

to hammer the bandwagon you started, without addressing my case on you or the three other players who subsequently expressed suspicion toward you(Dipstick, insanepenguin, and Westbrook, two of whom are now dead, and one of whom you are now voting for).

The odds of you just happening to return to the thread in that 5-minute window after being gone for over 4,000 minutes (while active elsewhere on the site) are

extremely

slim, not to mention the fact that you had been avoiding commenting on my case against you.

Are you really claiming that you just randomly happened to open the thread less than 5 minutes after the VT claim? Because if not, then you were obviously AVOIDING THE GAME, waiting for your chance to hammer and end discussion.

[GIEFF]

I agree that CR's claim that Xtoxm was "majorly" lurking around Christmas isn't really valid.

But why has everyone ignored my post 552? Day 1 is when he was REALLY lurking, and under much more suspicious circumstances.

[GIEFF]

Can somebody unvote W_O_U? I don't want anyone to be able to "accidentally" hammer (including W_O_U), again stifling discussion. We can proceed as if W_O_U is at L-1, but I'm not comfortable with him at L-1, especially considering how day 1 ended.

I don't feel a claim is necessary yet; Westbrook hasn't even had the chance to defend himself yet. Please de-lurk and try to catch up with the thread, Westbrook; you said you were back from V/LA on the 6th, and it is now the 9th.

Amished, ham, and Xtoxm, could you re-state your reasons for voting Westbrook?

Either way, W appears to be trying to lurk by, and I think him being lynched today would be useful.

W was on V/LA until the 6th. He has said he is trying to catch up.

In what way would lynching W be useful?

Once again:

Well, I knew i'd already discussed my thoughts on Ham. I thought there was no need to say more. I guess there was.

Please link me to the post where you "already discussed your thoughts on ham."

Amished (and everyone else):

Here is how Xtoxm posted in the 41 game posts between my case analyzing all his posts, and when he returned 5 minutes after the VT claim to hammer:

Game: Posts on 12/8 after my case, Posts on 12/9, Posts on 12/10, Posts on 12/11 before the hammer

Newbie 686: 0,4,0,0
Mini 680: 1,4,0,0
Mini 688: 0,1,0,5
Open 95: 7,2,6,3
Mini 695: 0,1,4,2
Mini 708 : 0,0,1,0

Mini 708 was locked for night phase from the 7th to the 10th, and the single post from Xtoxm was his "bah"post.

[GIEFF]

I've looked up West's history, and it seems he always does this. He's played about 10 games in all, and flaked them all, with all roles...Scum/VT/Town power.

Oddly enough, the first game I played on this site (this game being the second), I replace in for Westbrook. Is there an activity blacklist somewhere or something? This is a horrible time to get replaced out of a game, and is very lame.

In what way would lynching W be useful?

Because I think he's scum, and if he's not I think I know who is.

So why did you change your vote from CR to Westbrook? If you think it's between CC, CR, and W, wouldn't a lynch of any of the three give you just as much information? Your reason for switching ("because it would be useful") is not valid, as it applies just as much to the person you were on previously (CR).

Also, why do you think it's either W-CR or W-CC? Is it because you think everybody else is town, or did you see something specific to make you suspect a scumpair?

My isolation 31 will have been what I had in mind, I think.

What does this mean? Post 31 isn't by you.

What are you trying to do with this?

I'm answering Amished's question:

Were the 40 posts evenly spread out, like 10-15 a day in there, or were there 20+ on just one or two days?

In the time between my case against you on Dec 8th and your hammer on Dec 11th, you did not post in this thread while posting 41 times in other games.




Have you finished your re-read of Day 2 yet, CR?

[GIEFF]

I see; thanks, Xtoxm. Here is the post you were referring to:

I'm not sus of Ham.

Anyway, i've got my top 2 suspects, and i'm ready to lynch.

I asked you on Dec. 18th in Post 433:

Ham - For same reasons as before, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

And what reasons were these? Can you link me to the post? As far as I can tell, all you've said on the subject was "I'm not sus of ham" with no reasoning whatsoever to explain why, even after you were IGMEOY'd by ham.

Because you still didn't explain what your earlier reasons were, in post 566 I said:

For the second time, what reasons did you give for finding ham town?

Well the way he's acted looks like genuine pro-town interests, and genuine attempts to scumhunt. I'm not sure if I can explain it much better than that. Along with a few small things along the way that make me think he's town. Suffice to say, he has me convinced he's town, and at this point I trust him.

Thanks for the reply, Xtoxm. You said earlier that you think hambargaz is town "for the same reasons as before," yet had not provided any reasons up until this point:

For the second time, what reasons did you give for finding ham town? I've read the whole thread thoroughly, and cannot find the reasons you are referring to.

Well the way he's acted looks like

genuine pro-town interests, and genuine attempts to scumhunt.

Xtoxm, if this is really why you find hambargarz pro-town, why didn't you say so in post 407 (when you said the exact same thing about me), instead of implying you had already given different reasons, when you had in fact given no reasoning at all?

Cliff notes: In post 407, you said that I was town because I scumhunts and help the town, and that ham is town

"for the same reasons as before."

It is now clear that you HAD GIVEN NO EARLIER REASONS at the time of post 407, and when later pressed, the reason you gave was because he scumhunts and helps the town.

Why did you claim you had already given reasons for not suspecting ham when this was not true? If your real reason for not suspecting ham was because he looks towny, why didn't you just say that, instead of referencing a non-existent "earlier reason?"

[GIEFF]

@Xtoxm:

Also, why do you think it's either W-CR or W-CC? Is it because you think everybody else is town, or did you see something specific to make you suspect a scumpair?

Pretty much yeh, I think everyone else is town.

So why don't you suspect a CR-CC scumpair?

You've said you only suspect a W-CC or W-CR scumpair.

Yes, I realise this. I thought I had already mentioned, clearly had not. I don't go back and check everytime I post, I go by memory.

That's fine, but WHY did you think that you had already mentioned these reasons? And why have you still not really mentioned any reasons? You used the word "reasons," which leads me to believe that there was something more concrete than just "He has acted pro-town." That isn't a reason for not being suspicious, that's just a tautology.

This may not go down well, but what the heck.

Can't we just lynch him without a replacement?

I wanted to lynch _over before Dipstick replaced in on day 1, because the game was lagging so much. I think we got some good information by waiting for Dipstick to replace though, don't you?

In Post 314 you said that waiting for a claim before lynching the inactive _over was a good idea.

Why don't you think so now?

I don't know why nobody is focusing on the fact that you went inactive for three days immediately after people starting getting suspicious of you, and came back after 41 posts in other games just to hammer, referencing something that happened just 5 minutes earlier. This is hugely scummy, and enough in my eyes to lynch you even without your other scummy behavior.

I do not like the Westbrook lynch for today. infamous' scummy behavior looks a lot like a confused newbie, and Westbrook's inactivity is just inactivity; he has not been active in other games. Your switching votes from CR to Westbrook looks very opportunistic, Xtoxm, especially in light of you giving no valid reasons for doing so.

I think some of your more recent actions have read more as town, and your reaction to my voting you isn't so scummy, now I think about.

Which "more recent" actions are you referring to?

CR has been largely inactive recently.

Any progress on the replacement, mod?

@CR:

Amished, you bring up a good point about the wagon. I just have to go back and re-read day two.

Have you finished your re-read of Day 2 yet, CR?

@CarnCarn:

Regarding my point 4, it's something I just assumed was correct from what GIEFF and CR had said. Not original content from me, just borrowing their points

Why would you just accept what others say as true? Are you so sure that neither CR or I is scum?

[GIEFF]

If you're all that suspicious of me, you should probably lynch me.

Can you answer my questions?

[GIEFF]

Vote: ClockworkRuse

[GIEFF]

I'll let you finish re-reading Day 2 before I get into my reasoning.

[GIEFF]

Thanks for putting the time into that post, rabbit, and for working hard to get caught up. Two questions for you: did you read your role PM before or after you starting reading the thread? Why was I the first player you focused on?

-defends mlitant because he/she felt there wasnt a legitimate reason for the first place (174, 178), while essentially attacks infamousace for pretty much the same thing (189)

Okay while I do not like the double standard here, I think that it is possible that I may be overinterpreting things. Although I wouldn't mind if GIEFF had anything to comment on with respect to the different behavior at this stage. W/R/T the L2 situation, considering they were random votes myself I wouldn't like it either, alignment or not, but the minor manipulation attempt is just something that reads a little off to me.

I disagree with your summary of the situation. I was attacking others for voting militant for reasons which I did not find scummy, not defending militant. And when I attacked infamous in post 189, it was not because he removed the random vote, but because I felt that the logic he used to explain it ("it speeds the game up") was faulty. There is no double standard, and for you to construe manipulation out of this is odd. Can you explain more clearly what you mean by the "minor manipulation attempt?"

GIEFF would you mind explaining why when you had such good points against Xtoxm at this time that you put militant into an L-1 situation when there was certainly much discussion to be had in other directions still (Primarily xtoxm, if you felt the need to leave West alone)? I realize that the game may have been in a lag at that point (it is hard for me to perceive time since I have been reading this all very quickly) but it seems rather dangerous.

The only point I had raised about Xtoxm at the time I put militant/_over into an L-1 situation (Dec 3) was that Xtoxm started both wagons, hardly enough to warrant a vote over the other two players, who had acted much scummier up to that point. At the time of my vote, _over hadn't posted since November 19th (2 weeks), and he had acted very scummy. I was frustrated at the the inactivity bringing the game to a crawl, and wanted to end the day.

I did not feel the need to leave West alone, I just didn't see the point in pressuring him about another person's behavior.

Why did you say "primarily Xtoxm?"

There were other posters who I expressed more suspicion towards than Xtoxm at the time of my vote for _over.

-- advocates a quicker lynch before a replacment is made (308), and requests people to vote to avoid a no-lynch (373)

I agree that a no lynch is bad, but there I don't think lynching too quickly is a good idea at all. Also this seems to be inconsistent with later behavior towards Xtoxm.... since what you were advocating previously he essentially did, and then you voted for it. Do you feel that lynching someone without a claim is good, but right after a vanilla townie claim is bad? Why?

I do not think that lynching someone without a claim is good. I don't necessarily think lynching somebody after a vanilla townie claim is always bad, but when you do so just 5 minutes after the claim after being away from the thread (and multiple people expressing suspicion of you) for three days, then it looks very scummy.

I was advocating a quicker lynch because _over hadn't posted in so long, and the game was becoming inactive. I thought there was a good chance he was scum, and didn't think that a replacement could shake the lynch in a limited amount of time. I was right that the lynch wasn't shaken, but we did gain some information from Dipstick, and I am glad we did not follow my suggestion.

-- builds case against xtoxm (356) and accuses them of being inactive in this game while being activei n other games (384)

Again, why did you not unvote at this point and vote xtoxm at least to force others into that direction, perhaps get Xtoxm to explain beyond his weak reasoning at that point for his behaviors? I appreciate that you were essentially the only person to bother bringing many things up and made very helpful summary posts but I don't get the voting behavior at the time.

I did not unvote at this point because I felt militant/_over was a better lynch, and because I was waiting to see how Xtoxm would respond to my post. I did not realize that I would not get a chance to see him respond until many days later.

There is a lot of information here. A lot. Its not that I'm lazy as I've spent several hours on this game already but would you mind summarizing your thoughts on Xtoxm and hambargarz, especially given your current vote? Concise reasonings may be helpful for everyone.

Finally, there's a little bit of a inquiry into ClockworkRuse (580) and a vote without any explanation (589), so I wouldn't mind hearing that.

In any case, pending the answers to what I've asked you I think I generally feel that you are most likely pro-town as you have generated more discussion than anyone else here. However I don't understand the voting behavior from either day one or day two.

Will try to get to my next post soon.

I don't think anyone will accuse you of being lazy; there has been a lot of information this game, and I appreciate you taking the time to really look through it.

I think Xtoxm is scum. The 3-day lurk while suspicions grew against him followed by the 5-minute hammer based on the VT-claim should be enough to lynch him regardless of other behavior. He has also been extremely unhelpful and unwilling to answer questions of him, started both D1 cases, and does not explain the reasoning behind his votes.

I think ham is town. I became suspicious of him based on what I perceived as him following/defending Xtoxm, but he did a convincing job of answering the points I raised against him.

I will not yet go into my thoughts about ClockworkRuse, as I am waiting for him to re-read the thread and post his thoughts.

Care to explain?

[GIEFF]

rabbit, it looks to me like you are taking information from today and applying it to yesterday. At the time I voted to put _over at L-1, he was the scummiest to me, and Xtoxm was not high on my scumdar. He was basically caught in a lie about his reasons for NOT voting immediately, and I was very confident he would flip scum. I also did NOT think there was any more discussion to be had. Two weeks is a long time for a game to be on hold.

Dipstick only reached L-1 90 minutes before he was lynched, and I did not think to unvote at that time. I was worried about a no-lynch happening, as people were not active.

Can you explain more clearly what you mean by the "minor manipulation attempt?"

Also, why are you asking me what about ham's defense convinced me? Posting it in any more detail than I already have would just make it easier for scum to wriggle out from my points.

I am confused by something, rabbit:

My perspective on this is that I am surprised

(that I did note vote Xtoxm)

, and of course this is me thinking I have 20/20 hindsight here after a few readings

(note: I did not even jump ahead to check if whoever got lynched was innocent, I only made a post that I was in progress to perhaps let other players know that I would be contributing soon as there has seemed to be an extreme lack of participation in this game unfortunately)

So which is it? Did you just make a "I'm reading post" and go back to day 1, or read parts of day 2, then use this knowledge to better analyze what was happening in day 1? What "hindsight" are you talking about?


I don't want to get in the way of you analyzing the other posters, but a brief explanation would be helpful.

Then why are you voting CR? Fucking well vote me if you think i'm scum. This just makes it look like you're scum and want me for tomorrow's mislynch.

As I said before, I will not yet go into my reasoning for thinking Clockwork is scum.

[GIEFF]

Yes, I am being hypocritical. I assure you I have reasons for thinking he is scum, and I assure you I will go into them. Very broadly, I went back through the thread focusing on CR. I know I did this around Dec 30, as this is when the file with my notes was created. I think I read back focusing on him because of his odd behavior accusing CarnCarn of something that only Westbrook did. I didn't want to bring it up then because it would take pressure off you and Xtoxm, and I was already posting mountains of text I didn't want to add to any further.

I do now understand your point about not wanting to reveal why you find someone to be town, though, as I was pressuring you to do with Xtoxm. It seems to me this sort of request should only be made if you truly believe the person you are pressuring is scum, because if the person is town, you have given the scum information. rabbit, do you think I'm scum? Why do you want to know more details about my reasons for thinking ham is town?

[GIEFF]

Oh, you're right; it was more like 90 minutes.

I thought that I would remind you of an honest mistake you made as well, since that is what you are suspicious of me over? I'm looking forward to some clarification on that.

What mistake are you referring to? Also, the correct number to use for the statistical argument against Xtoxm really is more like five minutes, as Xtoxm referred to a post 7 minutes before his hammer-post.

Post 455, GIEFF you say you find my request for clarification scummy? To be honest, I misread what ham was saying about the scum pair. At first I thought he was saying that the scum pair was West and the person he replaced and I was really confused because I didn't read very carefully. Needless to say, I /facepalmed.

I /facepalm that you misunderstood the point, especially because it was about you. Was anybody else confused by ham's ambiguous language? Read from posts 436 through 440. He mentioned a relationship between you and infamous/Westbrook, and it was clear that this was what he was talking about in 440.

Post 456, You reference a game where Ham was scum, but did you take the time to look at a game where he was town as well? That could very well be his playing style in general.

There are no completed games on the site where ham is town.

[GIEFF]

No.

You should know this, as you saw my post where I analyzed Xtoxm's old games, and saw he had a similar voting style as both town and mafia.

[GIEFF]

So what's going on? Are we lynching me or not?

What do you recommend?

[GIEFF]

I could be convinced, but the outlook is not good right now.

[GIEFF]

Xtoxm, you are supposed to be an IC. rabbit just replaced in, and is asking you to summarize your position so he doesn't have to read through. There is no need to treat him that way.

[GIEFF]

If you don't think it is a reasonable request, there are two things you can do.

1. Act like a petulant child, be snotty and antagonistic, and don't answer the question.
2. Explain why you don't think it is a reasonable request, and don't answer the question.

[GIEFF]

Only point 4 was something I took at the word of others; the others were my own thoughts, although others then used those.

It's still regurgitating if you aren't adding new content. I've only found one point you made all game that hadn't been made by others, in post 252.


I agree with ham's points, and the fact that you reacted so emotionally, trying to discredit ham instead of address his points, is scummy. Looking at your posts in isolation, you have provided zero scumhunting.

Please respond to ham's points rationally, without the ad hominem

[GIEFF]

I just opened the file I used to take notes on CR (which I made to avoid too much info from me at once and to avoid interrupting the ham/xtoxm questioning), and found some notes I had taken on suspicious behavior by CC. I'll post them, too:

It

(self-voting)

is always anti-town. Always. Either you are scum trying to confuse the town with your voting, scum self-hammering to stop discussion in an inevitable lynch, or town who has given up on the game. All of these are terrible for town. I would vote you, normally, but the context of your self-vote is different, since it seems like you were trying to make a point about Mafia in general.

The self-vote was the start of a bandwagon which got a townie lynched. What point do you feel was made by this self-vote that made up for its other anti-town aspects, and prevented you from voting CR, as you "normally" would have done?

And anyway, the only town power role who should really try to remain hidden is the doctor, and he could play active townie just as well, it should be really easy for him, because he has no knowledge the town does not have

This is really a strange thing to say. What do you mean by "hidden"? Your suggesting this is in itself suspicious since it sounds like you are trying to influence the doctor's playstyle.
FoS: Elennaro

Elenarro was not influencing the night decision, he was giving advice in a newbie game about how a doctor should remain under the radar, which I think is very pro-town. I realize this is another original point you have made, though, so add it to the one I mentioned above.

As for a vote, I'm going to Vote: Elennaro because I want an answer from him about what he mean by the doctor staying hidden. I really don't want anyone to be trying, or thinking they can try, to manipulate how a PR plays and contributes to the game

Elenarro then explained himself, and you unvoted. You said the only reason you voted Elennaro in the first place was to make sure the doc didn't listen to him. But isn't doing so influencing the doc's playstyle just as much as Elenarro did, if not more? You weren't voting Elennaro because you thought he was scum, you were voting him to send a message to the doc.




Still waiting on CR.

[GIEFF]

Unvote: Xtoxm for now since derailing a lynch on me seems protown.

He was derailing a lynch on himself.

[GIEFF]

Unvote: Xtoxm for now since derailing a lynch on me seems protown.

He was derailing a lynch on himself.

Complete slander

FOS Gieff

Were you derailing a lynch on magicrabbit?

[GIEFF]

My point was that rabbit was not the only one in danger of being lynch, so shifting attention to another is not derailing just his lynch.


Post 88: Xtoxm votes for militant.
Post 95: ham votes for militant.


Post 670: Xtoxm votes for CC
Post 680: ham votes for CC.



Why do you continue to follow Xtoxm with your votes, ham?





Xtoxm has to be the lynch for today.

I made my case against him on day one in post 356 that showed how little he had contributed. He then lurked for three days, while posting 41 times in other games, coming back just 5 minutes after Dipstick claimed VT to lynch, referencing this post just 5 minutes earlier.

These are undeniable facts.

It is clear Xtoxm was checking the game, and purposely not saying anything while suspicions were building against him. This is an extremely easy lynch to me.


With five days to deadline, I can't wait for CR any longer, so I am going to

unvote

Vote Xtoxm

It was not my intent in voting CR to derail the Xtoxm wagon; he has been the best lynch in my eyes ever since his hammer of Dipstick. I saw what I thought was a scumtell from CR every time I attacked him, and wanted to see if he would do it again before I posted what that scumtell was. I will post my thoughts about CR either just before the lynch or in twilight so the town can read them in case I get killed tonight.


Xtoxm is at L-2 now, so if you want to vote for him, please just express that intent with a HOS so that there can be no quick-hammer to stifle discussion. I would still like to hear CC's response to the accusations brought against him, most of which I agree with.

[GIEFF]

He was perfectly happy with me and Rabbit being the contenders for the lynch, but now i've brought CC into the pool, he brings up old reasons to push for my lynch. You don't screw around voting someone you are supposedly that more suspicious of someone else.

This is not true. I have wanted to lynch you and only you for the entirety of day 2. I explained my reason for voting CR, and I bring up "old" reasons that you have not addressed, that remain very valid and very scummy, and that should not be ignored.

But just because I want to lynch you doesn't mean I am going to stop scumhunting and trying to figure out who else is scum. We only have 5 days for a lynch, and so I've given up on my CR case and am voting based on who I want to lynch, not voting to try to out scum.

[GIEFF]

I addressed those points ages ago.

Where?

Do you mean this?

So? That's really not much, for me. I was in about 10 games when this one started, when a game gets to a climax point it's easy to knock up lots of posts. I wasn't avoiding this game at any point. Hence, I wasn't lurking.

You wouldn't call the three days leading up to a deadline lynch a climax point?


Please address them again, if you don't mind. The timing is just too suspicious for me to believe that you weren't lurking to avoid suspicion, and hammering immediately after the claim to stifle discussion.

[GIEFF]

Thanks, Xtoxm; that explanation is helpful. The last two weeks of terms allowed you 41 posts in other games between your two in this one, so I don't buy that as a valid excuse. I understand why you would hammer a VT claim, and I understand the deadline pressure, but we still had some time to clear up other things, not the least important of which was the case I had made against you 3 days earlier.

Also, as CR asked you earlier on Day 2:

I don't like the fact that you admitted to hammering when you were "checking in." Did you re-read before you hammered? Did you catch up?

But looking back at your post history, you DID post in a couple other games just a few minutes before your hammer, which lends credence to your claim that the timing of your arrival was just random. But we really are talking about a less-than-5-minute window in a 72-hour period of no posting, and that just stretches the bounds of what I feel is likely to be a random coincidence.

Was your hammer was the first time you actually opened the thread in those three days, or just the first time you posted in it?

[GIEFF]

Yes, I do think the votes are justified, and think you made an excellent case against him. I agree with the points you made, and I await his response. I found especially scummy the fact that he just said "ham's points are rubbish" without really addressing them.

I don't think they're rubbish, CC. As I said in 675, not adding new content is still regurgitating, and I've only found two posts of yours in the thread where you provide new content.

[GIEFF]

OK, thanks Xtoxm. I wish you had answered me that way when I brought it up originally. I know it's a long time ago, but when was the first time you saw my long post about you three days before the hammer? Before or after the hammer?

[GIEFF]

I don't think CC should be today's lynch, so I don't think he should claim at this point. Xtoxm gave too little explanation too late, and I can't let somebody who hammered in that fashion get away with it. Before ANYBODY should claim though, we should be sure we really have four potential votes for that person.

GIEFF, seriously? I've haven't attacked ham ad hominem at all and I've addressed ALL of his points in my post. If there is something specific I haven't addressed, let me know. Also, I'm wondering what you define as "new content"; I'm pretty sure all of my posts earlier today gave "original content" (not so much in later posts, which have just been to say I'm catching up). Only 1 thing all game? Wow, I can't say much about that except it's flat out wrong. I'd spend another hour cataloging original content, but I want to know if I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying.

You're not misunderstanding. I looked at all your posts in isolation, and found two in which you bring up new points about related to who you think is scum, and why.

[GIEFF]

magicrabbit, why haven't you provided analysis on Xtoxm or CR yet?

Xtoxm, could you make a numbered list of reasons you find CC scummy, similar to the one he made in Post 544?


Amished and MR haven't posted for 2 days, and CR hasn't posted since 5 days ago, when he promised to pick up the re-read. Although, to be fair, he hasn't posted anywhere on the site in the last 5 days.



Please provide some thoughts and content now; we are closer and closer to the deadline and we need to make the best decision possible. It's looking as though it's coming down to Xtoxm and CC.

I don't like the way ham and Xtoxm started the CC wagon pretty much on their own, especially considering their past history of voting together and agreeing with each other (and of avoiding each other up until the point I mentioned it). I think the points are valid (especially ham's), but I still don't like it.

ham, how likely do you think it is that Xtoxm is scum? I know Xtoxm feels you are innocent, but you have FOS'd and IGMEOY's Xtoxm, and I would like to know where you currently stand.

[GIEFF]

Gieff you know i'm not good with that kind of thing. What is wrong with what i've done so far?

It would help me come to a decision on which of you (if either) is genuinely looking for scum, and which is framing a townie (or bussing, I guess).

In my experience, this HAS been a scumtell.

In a Newbie game? Really? Surely all the ICs must be scum then...

This is a misrepresentation of Xtoxm's point, and it looks intentional. Theory discussion is NOT scummy, but theory discussion alone at the expense of scumhunting discussion IS scummy. This point was very clear to me (see bold):

Theory discussion. CC has much of it early on,

and little of much anything else.

In my experience, this HAS been a scumtell.

[GIEFF]

This is a misrepresentation of Xtoxm's point, and it looks intentional. Theory discussion is NOT scummy, but theory discussion alone at the expense of scumhunting discussion IS scummy. This point was very clear to me (see bold):

Well, that's true, but the accusation doesn't hold water because this

is

a learning game, and my theory discussion certainly wasn't at the expense of scumhunting. Point me to something where I discuss theory in a way that is not relevant to finding out whether someone may or may not be scum.

The point now isn't whether Xtoxm's point is true (which I believe it is, and have said so more than once).

The point now is why you misconstrued Xtoxm's point by ignoring the part I quoted in bold above. And also why you ignored my accusation that you ignored it, and instead focused on whether or the point is valid.

These posts are not long, nor are their logic difficult to follow.

[GIEFF]

It would help me come to a decision on which of you (if either) is genuinely looking for scum, and which is framing a townie (or bussing, I guess).

I would eliminate bussing as a possible case. I know we can't be certain, but it's not very likely, given that I was the one that initiated the CC case and that Xtoxm is pushing for a lynch (as opposed to just attacking).

In short, it's quite unlikely that BOTH CC and Xtoxm are scum

Given the recent postings, I'm convinced now that if CC is lynched and flips town, Xtoxm is probably very likely to be scum. And if Xtoxm is lynched today and flips town, CC is very likely to be scum.

I agree it's quite unlikely both are scum, but are you really so sure that both are not town? I don't like the "Well, even if we lynch town today, we'll surely get scum tomorrow" logic. Let's just lynch scum today.

[GIEFF]

CarnCarn is at L-1 now. Anybody who hammers prematurely goes up my scumlist.

[GIEFF]

Amished, what are your thoughts on a Xtoxm lynch vs. a CarnCarn lynch?

[GIEFF]

Ok..Well as long as we lynch CC I won't have to refute this, but come on that's pretty far-fetched...

Why not? What if CC flips town?

[GIEFF]

You were way too sure there, Xtoxm, and saying things like "just wait until tomorrow, you'll see" strike me as scummy.

Why is it game over if we lynch CC and he's town?

[GIEFF]

So now you're sure CR is town?

I don't like seeing all this certainty from you, Xtoxm. I don't see what has changed to cause you to change your mind, and to make you so sure that you are correct. What it looks like to me is claiming you're sure to try to start a bandwagon, and switching votes when it's clear your current bandwagon isn't going anywhere.

[GIEFF]

Unvote Xtoxm

I intend to use the time we have.

[GIEFF]

What exactly do you want to do in the next 3 days, Gieff? Sit around and tell me i'm suspicious again?

I want to hear from CR, I want to discuss what to do if you flip town, and I want to read back and see if CC really looks like a cop.

If you think you're going to get lynched and can't stop it, then by all means stop checking the thread. It should make no difference to you if we take three days or not to make the decision final.

[GIEFF]

(and that IS a serious IC-comment, btw)

So some of your IC-comments were NOT serious?

I really want to hear from CR, even if only to hear whether he CC's cop or not.


So Amished, who are the two scum?

[GIEFF]

Just thinking this through.

If CC really is the cop, he is now worthless to the town, unless Xtoxm is the roleblocker. If mafia has no roleblocker, they know there is no doc, and so can NK CC tonight, and if they do have a roleblocker, they will just roleblock CC forever. If Xtoxm flips town, we still have no idea whether CC is a legit cop or not.

Because you are useless to the town now, CC, what do you think about us lynching you to verify your claim? If you flip cop, then magicrabbit is clear, and there is a 50/50 shot that we have a doc to protect MR tonight.



No, I do not CC cop.

[GIEFF]

Claiming VT should not factor into your decision of whether or not Xtoxm is scum.

[GIEFF]

Claiming VT should not factor into your decision of whether or not Xtoxm is scum.

No. Nothing anyone says should factor into your decision. We should roll dice.

My point is that scum would claim VT in your spot as well. I find it odd that Amished decided to believe that you are town just because you said you are VT.

I also find it odd how quickly both Amished and ham were to believe the cop claim.

[GIEFF]

The way I see it, Xtoxm is the target for lynch as I am inclined to believe CC's claim in the absence of a counter claim.

If this is true, I would predict a roleblock on CC and an NK on MR. If we have a doc it will be a hard decision between the two due to WIFOM. Not to mention a whole WIFOM situation tomorrow if CC and MR are alive.

If Xtoxm is lynched and flips town, would we be willing to lynch CC? (rhetorical question)

Why is that a rhetorical question?

What would Xtoxm flipping town have to do with CC? I think you were the first to say the following (in post 738)

Given the recent postings, I'm convinced now that if CC is lynched and flips town, Xtoxm is probably very likely to be scum. And if Xtoxm is lynched today and flips town, CC is very likely to be scum.

I am not at ALL convinced of this. When pressed by me on this point, you said

No I'm not sure, both could in fact be town.... Given the recent exchange between the two, both of them being town is unlikely in my opinion. I would like to give the whole story of why I think this, but this would help the scum more than the town and I believe that discussion is getting a bit ahead of ourselves anyway.

Two townies could easily think each other are scum. I don't see whatever it is you see, nor do I see how posting it would help the scum. Could you at least explain WHY you think posting it would help the scum?


CC, I would like to hear what you think about the strategy of lynching you to prove or disprove your cop claim.

[GIEFF]

I somewhat doubt he'll endorse it.

Do you endorse it?

[GIEFF]

My first reaction was no, then I thought maybe the cop claim doesn't really change much. But I don't really care so much anymore.

If your first reaction was no, then why didn't you unvote?

If Xtoxm is town, he is quite experienced and we should take his opinion with alot of weight,

He led the town to a mislynch on day 1, party because you took his opinion with a lot of weight. As I said much earlier today, I think a new strategy is in order.




Xtoxm, please explain the cop tell you saw from insanepenguin.

[GIEFF]

If your first reaction was no, then why didn't you unvote?

Because the only place I would have moved it to was me.

And if anyone had hammered, and he'd been cop, that pretty much confirms them as scum anyway. 1 for 1 is a good trade for the cop.

Xtoxm, please explain the cop tell you saw from insanepenguin.

I don't even remember saying this. I don't know what I saw. I cannot remember.

Do you think CC is scum right now? If not, who are your top 2 suspects?

[GIEFF]

Just want some clues if you flip town.

I thought you were suspecting CC and MR? What changed since you said this:

Infact i'm leaning a bit more away from CR and towards CC-MR pair. He's still a long way above the rest though.

Why is CR back in the mix over MR now, if you think the cop report is fake?

[GIEFF]

Vote Amished

[GIEFF]

Vote Amished

I could go for this. Why do you feel that they are worth voting?

He made an obvious scumslip, that makes me about 90% certain he's scum. Waiting to see who catches it first so that they are cleared tomorrow.

[GIEFF]

Yeah, there was no scumslip from Amished... I'm just trying to test reactions, give us as much information at possible for tomorrow.

Unvote Amished

magicrabbit, why did you say you could "go for" an Amished lynch?


We have two days to lynch, and it looks like it's going to be Xtoxm. I'm going to post my case against CR just in case I get killed tonight for some reason so that you all can see it tomorrow.

My first slight clue came from GIEFF. All along he's seemed like the most pro-town to me, and apparently to many other people. (Obviously only counting d1, as d2 would have no bearing on the NK). I felt that an experienced player would take away the most townie, leaving many slightly suspicious players for d2 to fight out. I've read this in a couple other theory threads around, and it's the general consensus among almost all the experienced and well known players out there. This led me to two conclusions: the mafia are probably less experienced (+1 good point to the IC's) and were looking to target a power role, which is probably better to take out than a townie in their opinion. Heck, if they got a power role, they'd be much better off, though it's a risk if they didn't (which they didn't).

Why didn't you consider the possibility that I wasn't killed because I am scum? And why did you assume the scum would assume I am NOT a power role? (You implied that not voting for me = targeting a power role).

CarnCarn:

About self-voting:

It is always anti-town. Always. Either you are scum trying to confuse the town with your voting, scum self-hammering to stop discussion in an inevitable lynch, or town who has given up on the game. All of these are terrible for town. I would vote you, normally, but the context of your self-vote is different, since it seems like you were trying to make a point about Mafia in general.

The self-vote was the start of a bandwagon which got a townie lynched. What point do you feel was made by this self-vote?

And anyway, the only town power role who should really try to remain hidden is the doctor, and he could play active townie just as well, it should be really easy for him, because he has no knowledge the town does not have

This is really a strange thing to say. What do you mean by "hidden"? Your suggesting this is in itself suspicious since it sounds like you are trying to influence the doctor's playstyle.
FoS: Elennaro

As for a vote, I'm going to Vote: Elennaro because I want an answer from him about what he mean by the doctor staying hidden. I really don't want anyone to be trying, or thinking they can try, to manipulate how a PR plays and contributes to the game

Elenarro explained himself, and you unvoted. Could this be

uh, lol. "Trust me?" I hope you can give a better answer when you sober up a bit.

CR:

I had to pry a LOT of information out of you on day 1; you went lurky after I pressured you

In respose to CR's post 171

Unvoting to make someone happy? XD
Vote: Militant
That is pretty much two accounts of appeasement.

I said in post 174:

... There was no reason for it

(militant's random vote)

in the first place. I fail to see how

removing it

is scummy - you guys

(CR and uriel)

attacking him actually looks scummier in my eyes.

You never responded to this, letting uriel answer for both of you.

You did respond to my question about what the first count of appeasement was, in 197:

When he was talking after I said discuss, I felt that was some minor appeasement too.

That is ridiculous. You, an IC, asked the non-IC's to discuss a point. Militant discussed it. That is not appeasement, that is responding to a direct request for discussion, which is pro-town. When I brought this up before, you answered:

It was more in the way he did it. I said discuss and he tried to make it seem like he had something to add without really giving an opinion. So, he tried to appease me with his answer while being wishy-washy.

I thought this answer was weak, and so I pressed further, in post 210:

There is content there, his

militant's

answer was "I feel it's pro-town." I don't see the wishy-washiness; he gave his opinion, but said that he still doesn't understand what your motives were for doing so (which you still have not answered, incidentally). Also, I don't really see how this is appeasement, as the question was not directed at militant.

And even if this WERE a wishy-washy answer, it is hardly a central issue here. As I said in post 196, appeasement about an actual vote in the game is MUCH more suspicious than "appeasement" about theory or other metagame considerations. Scum has no incentive to lie about discussions of theory; their incentive to lie only becomes apparent when trying to explain the reasons for their votes, as there are other factors at play (i.e. actually KNOWING who is town and who isn't, instead of needing to try to puzzle it out, like the rest of us). Does this distinction make sense to you, Clockwork, or am I missing something?

You never responded to this point. Would you like to now? And soon after this point was your first instance of "buddying" towards me, in 214, on November 11th:

GIEFF has some excellent posts up there. I will give you a response as to why I think militant is wishy-washy and answer any other questions for you tomrrow.

You posted twice "tomorrow" [Nov 12th], but neither was the promised response.

Then, on Nov. 14th (3 days later), after I asked you to answer again, you said this in post 226:

Working on it, I've been a little side-tracked by other games recently. Expect an answer later tonight.

"Later tonight" came, and still no answer. CR's next post was 3 days later, on the 17th, just 3 minutes after _over FOS'd him in post 235.

On the 19th, I told you I have been waiting 5 days for an answer, and you said the following in post 256

Good posting. =D I'm not going to say I never got around to it on purpose, I just kind of forgot about your question. I'm getting to it right now;

More buddying after an aggressive post by me. Also, suspicious wording. You "just kind of" forgot, and "aren't going to

say

you never got around to it on purpose."


You finally answered with the following, on the 20th:

He's been slipping actually, but that's probably because he's going for an "Out of sight, out of mind" method and with 9000's play and Militant's play, it worked sadly.

He's... third on my scumdar, but he's not there by very much.

Although you never addressed my rebuttal to your claim that militant's post was appeasement.

Why did it take nine days and a lot of prodding from me to get you to post these three lines? Before this answer, between the 11th and the 20th, you posted 10 other times in the game and 26 times in other games, so this looks to me like you were hoping the question would just be dropped.

Also, you only answered half the question. You talked about why you unvoted ham, but not more about why you voted militant. In hindsight, I should have pressed more on the militant-appeasement issue, but as I had shifted focus onto the ham-unvoting issue as well as the two players I felt were scummier than you (_over and infamous), I let it slide until now.

Another point; you said ham was "... third" on your scumdar, which begs the question who was second? You had only voted/FOS'd two people at the time of this post; ham and militant.

The buddying continued on day 2.

To be honest, I don't blame Gieff for being rude.

This came immediately after your vote for Xtoxm in Post 467, almost as if it was a justification for your vote.

Gieff, you are my hero. Did you really go through all of those games?

While I agree that I am extremely deserving of being your hero, when coupled with your history of buddying-type statements towards me in lieu of answering my questions, it becomes very suspicious. I haven't seen you post buddying statements like this to other players (and I've seen 4 toward me), nor have I seen other players make buddying-type comments towards me.





http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &start=222 Post 222 looks a lot like coaching a scumpartner.

[GIEFF]

Oops, clicked submit early.

I didn't post the above reasoning because I wanted to see if CR posted another "buddying" type response to my attack. He didn't, though; the closest thing he said was "sorry GIEFF and town for the delay."



Is there anything else that should be discussed today before the lynch? I think Xtoxm is the best choice.

[GIEFF]

So are you saying you think i'm town? Why are you pushing for my lynch then?

Is this addressed at me? No, I don't think you're town, although I am less sure you are scum than I was when you were refusing to answer any questions.

[GIEFF]

FoS: hambargarz I think it's much more possible now that he's scum trying to deflect attention from a scumbuddy in danger of being lynched (either magicrabbit or Xtoxm).

Why would you say something like this if you had an innocent on him?

Why did you make no attempt to crumb your result, or even mention WOU/MR or suggest you thought he was town up until very recently?

That's not how a cop with an innocent result acts...

Also, why, if you are cop, were you happy not to claim to save MR from being lynched, when he spent a period at L-1? Or even try to put you argument in against his lynch? Why did you sit back and let it happen?

The doubt that has crept into me is repidly disappearing as I reread CC. His play does not fit with what he has claimed at all.

Yes, I would like to hear these answers, CC, and quickly. Only two days left.

[GIEFF]

I am ready to lynch Xtoxm; ham and Amished, do you agree?

[GIEFF]

What do you expect from scum?

He hasn't posted ANYWHERE on the site in a week; it's not like he's avoiding this game specifically.

What did you think about the case I posted against him? (sorry for all the clutter and stuff about CC in there; I accidentally just pasted the whole file of notes). If you are town, any extra info you can give us before your lynch is helpful.

[GIEFF]

If CC really is cop, I need to re-look over Ham. But i'm being lynched, so meh.

Look over ham as in you no longer think he is town?

[GIEFF]

What does it have to do with CC being cop? Just because it means of your three suspect, two are town, so you need another scum-suspect?

[GIEFF]

Wait a sec, if I add up the math, I view CR to be scummy, mr just posted his vote to CR, xtoxm views him as scummy, and GIEFF might be leaning that way? How about CC and ham, do you feel that there's a strong enough case against him (from his posts before the absence, and perhaps what happened right before his v/la or whatever). Lately more than ever I've been getting a town read on xtoxm, though it could be just resignation and giving up whatever he wants to (which still seems more town than a scum giving up).

MR, what made you decide now that CR was worth voting for? I take it that you believe xtoxm being vt, and cc's cop claim then?

On Monday, you said:

I did a reread of CR today, and I plan on doing one of xtoxm as well tomorrow, probably post my thoughts then on them. I don't know why you don't see this stuff I've posted and I thought made pretty clear if you take the time to read it.

You never posted your thoughts on CR. Then, on Thursday (yesterday), you said:

and I plan on looking more into CR tonight.

And now all of a sudden you are claiming that you think he's scummy and trying to see how he can get lynched? Why do you find him scummy? Why did you re-read him twice, and not post your thoughts either time?

[GIEFF]

This is ridiculous. None of you expressed much suspicion CR prior to today, right? Or did I just miss it?

He is not avoiding this game; he hasn't posted ANYWHERE on the site in the last week, so it is obviously an external issue preventing him from doing so.

I don't like the way this CR wagon has built. But lynching him could provide a LOT of information tomorrow if he turns up town. I still lynch an Xtoxm lynch is best. Your thoughts, ham?

[GIEFF]

EBWOP: "None of you" meaning magicrabbit and Amished; not Xtoxm.

magic, you say your CR vote is a pressure vote, but he isn't checking the thread, and deadline is in about 24 hours.


I am pretty convinced that if we lynch CR and he flips town, Amished is scum. The logic for the CR vote doesn't look good to me, and the timing is very opportunistic, especially considering the lack of suspicion toward CR in Amished's earlier posts.

I would still rather lynch CR. Your thoughts are important here, ham; we are the only two left to vote, and we have about 24 hours to make the decision.

[GIEFF]

EBWOP x2: I would still rather lynch Xtoxm, not CR... sorry.

[GIEFF]

OK, thanks ham. This is a very tough choice. I'll try to get a big re-read in before the deadline, but if I'm not back an hour or two before the deadline, then you switching your vote to CR is OK with me.

Amished was so fishy with his CR vote that I think the combined chance of CR being scum, plus the info it would give us being town, is worth more to the town than lynching Xtoxm, as if Xtoxm flips town we won't get a whole lot of info.

I'd also like to hear why you think a "pressure" vote would work when it's the first vote, and when CR is obviously not checking the thread, rabbit.


Please nobody switch their votes.

[GIEFF]

... this is nuts. Well, if everybody is telling the truth, I'm pretty sure I know who the scum actually are... /is so confused

Well, if CC is telling the truth, and I still think you're townie, xtoxm is town, and the innocent on MR, that leaves me, ham and CR. Obviously I know I'm not scum, so that would leave ham and CR. CR lurking for a while now (haven't really seen a case against him) and ham are the only two left. Ham was #2 on my list for a while, but with CC's claim and result, my #1 and the person I thought about also voting for are both cleared. That would leave ham and then probably xtoxm for people I have a read on, and I plan on looking more into CR tonight.

I'll be off for a while tonight (be back later) but I'm going out to eat and visit a friend. With both @ l-2 now (thanks gieff for unvoting) it should be safe until I get back.

You knew that Xtoxm was town. You know that I am town. You are scum, and you saw the lylo-endgame coming, and tried to prepare for it.

There was no reason for a townie to believe Xtoxm's VT claim, but you believed it instantly. Did anybody else see Xtoxm's claim and suddenly think to themselves "oh, well if he's telling the truth, then I know who the scum is?"

And if you really believed in CC'c cop-claim, why did you continue to vote for MR? You only changed your vote to CR after I questioned you about why you suddenly became so suspicious of him after not expressing much suspicion before.




magicrabbit, I wish you hadn't changed your vote. I'd like to think I would have voted for CR, but I probably still would have ended up voting Xtoxm. I would have appreciated the extra day to think about it as I asked for, though.

[GIEFF]

When I voted for you yesterday, you said:

I can do it too. What is that supposed to mean at all? I haven't seen you have a case against me (nor I against you) but then there's a vote out of nowhere? ... I don't even know what to say. I'm baffled, but then I don't know if I should be offended, patient to find out reasoning, or what. It doesn't make any sense to me, especially considering the current situation.

I haven't seen you have a case against CR but then there's a vote out of nowhere?

You also said the following to ham:

And then we come back to ham, who says his suspicions haven't even really been on you lately (why no unvote ham?) but apparently not really?

So you ask ham why he didn't unvote, yet you don't unvote someone cleared by a cop investigation?

More things you said about Xtoxm before saying that you believe his VT claim:

I tend to agree with GIEFF that you (xtoxm)were not only derailing a lynch on MR as to yourself as well. I think this is slightly scummier than normal, as you can try to prove yourself innocent (like a normal townie would try to) and still keep suspicion high on another person that you find suspicious.

I guess I would be ok with either lynch, but with CarnCarn's recent actions, I'd lean towards him being a lynchee, with mr/xtoxm being tomorrow higher on my scum list.

The above quote was the last thing you said about Xtoxm before his VT claim, at which point you claimed to have worked out who the scum were.

A VT claim should not be enough for someone to go from being high on your scumlist to cleared town.


You knew Xtoxm was town. You are scum.

[GIEFF]

Obviously my read was correct, so you're accusing me of seeing something that either you didn't believe or didn't see as quickly as I saw.

... or you knew he was town because you are scum.

I didn't vote for him til after my iso post 44, which looks like a case to me. Are you missing these?

In the post immediately before your iso 44, I found your behavior toward CR suspicious. You said you re-read him twice, and didn't say anything scummy.

Forgive me if I don't give you brownie points for only making a case AFTER I said it was suspicious that you hadn't.



Waiting to hear from CarnCarn.

[GIEFF]

Are you trying to argue that because Xtoxm was town, he can't make mistakes?

You slipped up again. You pretty much just admitted to knowing that I am town, and seem to be admitting you know that CC is town.

If you were really town, for all you would know, both CC and I are mafia, and to use the argument "well Xtoxm was right about you two" would be very silly in that case.

[GIEFF]

CC hasn't posted in this game in 10 days (although almost half of that was night phase). He is active elsewhere on the site. I'd think a legitimate cop would be more eager to inform us of his results.

[GIEFF]

HOS: CarnCarn

[GIEFF]

Thanks, CC. I agree that the doctor should claim ASAP.

This is also a bit strange. Why would you like to think you would have voted CR?

Becuase Xtoxm is 100% townie at this point, and CR (now fuzzy) isn't; therefore, I should have chosen CR. I know this sort of thinking does us no good; I was just a bit upset that I didn't have the chance to think it over that I had asked for. I agree that Xtoxm looked extremely scummy for the majority of the game.

As for the dialogue between GIEFF and Amished on the last page, I'm not sure at all how GIEFF came to the conclusion that Amished "knows" anything about GIEFF from the post he quoted. He did say "Xtoxm is town" before Xtoxm was lynched, which is strange. And:

My first slight clue came from GIEFF. All along he's seemed like the most pro-town to me, and apparently to many other people. (Obviously only counting d1, as d2 would have no bearing on the NK). I felt that an experienced player would take away the most townie, leaving many slightly suspicious players for d2 to fight out. I've read this in a couple other theory threads around, and it's the general consensus among almost all the experienced and well known players out there. This led me to two conclusions: the mafia are probably less experienced (+1 good point to the IC's) and were looking to target a power role, which is probably better to take out than a townie in their opinion. Heck, if they got a power role, they'd be much better off, though it's a risk if they didn't (which they didn't).

Why didn't you consider the possibility that I wasn't killed because I am scum? And why did you assume the scum would assume I am NOT a power role? (You implied that not voting for me = targeting a power role).

I look like town. Scum likes to kill those who look like town. I was not targeted by scum. Assuming it was optimal play for scum to kill me (I don't necessarily agree, but Amished does), there are two possible explanations.

1. I lived because the scum played sub-optimally
2. I lived because I cannot die (i.e. I am scum)

Amished immediately focused on the first explanation, and gave town points to the IC's because he figured they would not play sub-optimally. The fact that he didn't even consider the second explanation makes me think he KNOWS it cannot be true.

Given the recent postings, I'm convinced now that if CC is lynched and flips town, Xtoxm is probably very likely to be scum. And if Xtoxm is lynched today and flips town, CC is very likely to be scum.

Does this logic still apply?

[GIEFF]

The Amished initiated wagon on CR with 2 confirmed townies on it, was initially opposed by GIEFF. In fact, I think GIEFF has attacked everyone BUT CR.

There are two factual errors in this quote.

FoS hambgargarz

for distorting the past.

Error #1:

The Amished initiated wagon

Wrong. Amished did not start the wagon. magicrabbit was the first to vote CR, and ostensibly for reasons that I brought up in post 480.

Error #2:

In fact, I think GIEFF has attacked everyone BUT CR.

Wrong. post 480

Also, I was not so much against a CR lynch as surprised at how quickly it grew, and suspicious of those who changed their votes in a way that struck me as opportunistic. magicrabbit and Amished hadn't expressed much suspicion at all for CR, and for both of them to suddenly switch to vote for him struck me as odd.

HOS: CarnCarn

What's the HOS for?

CC said he would post last night, and he didn't. Consider it retracted now, although I am somewhat less sure of the legitimacy of his cop claim.






So I guess the doc is either fuzzy or Amished?

[GIEFF]

Speculating about why you were NOT killed will likely drive us in loops. You're either scum yourself or you're town and not killed for a bunch of other reasons.

I agree, and I'm not asking us to speculate about that. You asked what made me think Amished knew I was town, and I showed you. He ignored a plausible explanation because it would mean I am scum, and I think he KNOWS that I am not scum.

So I guess the doc is either fuzzy or Amished?

I can under ruling yourself out, but what has ham said to rule out him being the doc?

Because he didn't claim doc after you asked for doc claims. Are you the doc, ham?

I didn't write what you're referring to. I think it was ham, but not sure.

Oops, my bad. You're right, it was ham, in Post 745. Let me try that again:

Given the recent exchange between the two, both of them being town is unlikely in my opinion. I would like to give the whole story of why I think this, but this would help the scum more than the town and I believe that discussion is getting a bit ahead of ourselves anyway.

Does this logic still apply, ham? Care to give "the whole story" now?

[GIEFF]

Oops, I guess you're technically right, I was going off memory, I had the impression Amished started it all. I didn't read back for that. But my point is Amished was on his wagon. I've just done a reread, and I can see that MR technically cast the first vote, but the first real points against CR were brought up by Amished accompanied by his own vote, MR's vote was just a "pressure vote" on CR to post, Amished had pretty much initiated the wagon.

Wrong again. My long case against CR came just a few posts before MR's vote.

You didn't make mistakes like this before. You are obviously trying to twist the truth. I notice you only started attacking me once it was clear I am not the doc. Have you been suspicious of me before this lylo endgame where it's clear you are going to have to get a third townie lynched?

Is that the only "attack" on CR? I think it pales in comparison with you're cases on other players.

Wrong. Twisting the past again. My case against CR was a very long one, and had CR been active in the game, we would have gone back and forth for a while. Don't blame me for CR's inactivity. I think I've thrown a lot more accusations at CR than at CC.

You were caught in two mistruths, intentional or no. A townie would have dropped it, because a townie is going after the truth. You continue to try to hammer your points home.

Can I also add that GIEFF and CR have been the main instigators of the case against Xtoxm (A confirmed townie).

Once again, this looks like you purposefully trying to throw as much as you can at your GIEFF-CR theory, and hoping it stick. "Can you also add"? Xtoxm's play was extremely scummy, and just about everybody agreed.

GIEFF: What are your thoughts on CR, It seems your only points against him are that he didn't answer some of your questions about his behaviour from day 1. Is it safe to assume that CR is quite low on you're list of suspects?

It's not CR anymore. Saying my "only points" against CR was his behavior on day one is trying to twist the truth yet again. It may have been day 1 behavior, but that doesn't make it any less scummy. I believe my points against CR were a lot more substantive than anything you brought up; don't use words like "only" to make it look like I don't have a case. I came very close to lynching him yesterday.


As I believe CC's claim (and I think I believe Amished's for now, but I will read back), then yes, I'm fine with lynching your scumbuddy first. Although your willingness to do so makes me think that you are the roleblocker rather than him.


I'm a little bit off-put by Amished's surety that I am town, though. Only scum should be that sure. If you really are the doc and you really are that sure I am town, I think we're in very good shape. Amished, can you explain why you didn't consider the fact that maybe I wasn't NK'd because I am scum?

I'd like to hear from fuzzy, to see if he wants to CC doc, and to tell us if he's the roleblocker or just a goon.

[GIEFF]

You have made so many distortions of the past and so many mistruths in your last few posts that I'm convinced it was intentional, which makes you scum, ham.


Yes, the points I brought up against CR still make me suspicious of FL.

Interesting way to put it. A bit defensive in my opinion, going straight for me being scum. If you believe me to be wrong you simply have to point it out. I'm referring to solid facts that are stored black and white in this same thread, so they can easily and accurately be checked. If you are correct you really have nothing to be worried about. This is the kind of reaction I was looking for. (and is consistent with my past poking of GIEFF)

So you're claiming you lied on purpose to see how I would react? When you reveal yourself to be scum, of course I'm going to attack you for it. You can't retroactively claim that your lies were just meant to test me. You willfully distorted the past multiple times (even about things you admit are "black and white" and easily verifiable), and when shown that you were wrong, you haven't backed down.


Amished, do you know who your character protected night 1? And why did you protect me last night instead of CC? I want nobody but Amished to answer these questions, please.


Here are the 4 scenarios of PR legitimacy FMPOV, assuming FL does not CC a power-role.

1. CC is legit cop, Amished is legit doc. ham and FL are scum.
   
2. CC is legit cop, Amished is not the real doc. Amished and ham/FL are scum.
   
3. CC is fake cop, Amished is real doc. CC and ham/FL are scum.
   
4. Both PR's are fake. CC and Amished are scum.

• 2 is not possible. If CC is legit cop and Amished is not the real doc, then there is no roleblocker, but a legit cop wouldn't falsely claim to be role-blocked, so we can rule it out.
  
  
• 3 is possible. It would mean there is no roleblocker, but it would also mean that CC would have had to guess which PR was actually in the game. If he guessed wrong, it would have been disastrous for the mafia when he got CC'd, so I don't think 3 is likely.
  
  
• 4 is possible. It would mean there is a roleblocker, and CC fake-claimed because with two VT's dead, the odds go up that we are in the no-PR setup rather than the 2-PR setup. When there was no cop CC, this revealed to the scum that we are indeed in the no-PR setup, making the doc-claim safe, and making Amished CC's scumbuddy. I don't think this is likely.
  
  
• 1 is the most likely to me. It means ham and FL are scum, and with ham's recent very-scummy distortions in an attempt to implicate me, I am quite confident that this is what we are dealing with.

In any case, I am about 90% sure that CC and Amished are on the same team, and also pretty sure that that team is the town.



Pending FL's response, I am willing to vote either ham or FL, but I would prefer ham, as I believe he is more likely to be the roleblocker, and as his distortions are so obviously scummy that I'm confident he'll flip scum even if #1 isn't really the case.

I would like to hear your thoughts, CC, and would also like Amished to answer my question in this post, and my question about why he did not consider the possibility that I wasn't NK'd because I am scum.

[GIEFF]

You have made so many distortions of the past and so many mistruths in your last few posts that I'm convinced it was intentional, which makes you scum, ham.

Please state my "many mistruths", I believe you're distorting there. I can only think of one area where I was not accurate. I admited I was going off memory, I admit I missed your previous post about CR which is why I had thought Amished post was the first. Why is that scummy?, wouldn't a scum player be quite careful what he was saying? Why would a scum player post a lie that could be so easily be verified as false?

You're right, that is a good point. If you were scum, you would probably try to be more careful about it. This is very WIFOM-y, though, and I am still pretty confident you are scum. Maybe you thought you wouldn't get caught. If you were town, why would you try to build a case on lies? And if town, why do you continue to try to argue that Amished started the CR wagon? CR was under no suspicion whatsoever when I voted him out of the blue, and eventually laid out my reasoning behind it.

Here are your distortions:

Error #1:

The Amished initiated wagon

Wrong. Amished did not start the wagon. magicrabbit was the first to vote CR, and ostensibly for reasons that I brought up in post 840.

Error #2:

In fact, I think GIEFF has attacked everyone BUT CR.

Wrong. post 840

the first real points against CR were brought up by Amished accompanied by his own vote, MR's vote was just a "pressure vote" on CR to post, Amished had pretty much initiated the wagon.

You once again say Amished started the wagon, ignoring my substantial case in 840, and my vote for CR earlier in the day.

Wrong. post 480

Is that the only "attack" on CR? I think it pales in comparison with you're cases on other players.

It's not my fault CR went inactive, and I believe it is on par with the posts I've made against CC.

GIEFF: What are your thoughts on CR, It seems your only points against him are that he didn't answer some of your questions about his behaviour from day 1. Is it safe to assume that CR is quite low on you're list of suspects?

Trying to make it look as though I am not suspicious of CR, and ignoring the fact that I instructed you to hammer on CR if I didn't get back before the deadline. Read my case in 840; for you to say "my only points against him" shows a bias. You are trying to insinuate the case has no merit just because it's based on day 1 actions.

No i'm not claiming I lied on purpose, I don't see how one could have interpreted it that way. What I am saying is that my jabs on you are met with a heavy defensive reaction as opposed to my jabs on other players. The content of the jabs or their validity wasn't part of the subject.

I wouldn't classify my reaction as defensive so much as I would as offensive. If you had done the same thing to another player, I would have first given that player a chance to respond (in case that player is scum, as the reaction would be important), and then attacked you all the same. The fact that your case was directed at me just meant that I didn't have to wait for your target to respond.

I'm quite close to voting someone (which I'm quite sure will not result in a double scum hammer), but am holding off till FL and CC say something.

I'm quite sure it won't either.

GIEFF: The fact that you were not NK'd, would you say the scum players slipped up? I think you would be a good target seeing as everyone thinks you are pro-town. (with the possible exception of MR)

Are you talking about night 1 or night 2?

I have no idea what the scum were trying to do. The fact that I am vocal may have let the scum know that I am VT, and they were PR-hunting, as Xtoxm thought on day 2 re: the N1 NK. Maybe they thought a doctor would be protecting me. Maybe they thought they could manipulate me. Maybe they thought I was not the player who appeared most pro-town to everybody. There are a lot of possible explanations, so no, I do not think the scum players slipped up. Will you make your quicktopic available after the game?

If you're talking about night 2, then if Amished is really the doc, then they obviously didn't slip up, as he protected me.

[GIEFF]

I can't decide between ham and FL. I wasn't all that suspicious of ham before quite recently, which makes me maybe want to lean more towards FL.

I would like to hear others' thoughts, especially CarnCarn's.

[GIEFF]

Quick update: My sister is in labor, so I will be with very limited access for this weekend. CHEERS!

Congratulations!

[GIEFF]

Baaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!! :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Sorry, Xtoxm. :(

[GIEFF]

You around, CarnCarn? You haven't posted since Amished's doc claim. Do you believe it? Who do you want to lynch?

[GIEFF]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[GIEFF]

I think I'm going to start storing my personal information here; it's not as if anybody will read it or anything.
Edited out

OK, that should be safe. Bookmarked for my personal future reference. I can't see why anybody else would be reading this thread, but if somebody happens to stumble across it somehow, please don't use any of this information.

[GIEFF]

I wasn't talking about you, btw hasdfgas; I appreciate all the replacements and prods and deadlines.


And that info was all fake, but I appreciate the edit nonetheless.

[GIEFF]

There is a WIFOM case for leaving him alive though, MR also didn't contribute as much as you yet for some reason scum preferred you to be alive.

So I take this to mean you assume I am town?


I too await CC's thoughts.

[GIEFF]

I was posting during the time the prod was sent out, hows that for a fast reply. I think I've made record for the fastest response to a prod

3 minutes, that is nicely done. I hope you feel better.

[GIEFF]

OK, understood. It can be confusing talking in nested realities sometimes; just checking.

[GIEFF]

Hope your sister is recovering well.

I agree; we're stuck until CC and FL get back.

[GIEFF]

Update to the voting history:

By Character

insanepenguin02

FoS: clockworkruse

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 19
Vote: urielzyx, Unvote., UnFoS.

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 41
Vote: RealityFan

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 97
Unvote

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 157
FoS: militant.

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 190
FOS: Xtoxm Post 359
Vote: Dipstick Post 378

magicrabbit

FoS: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 22
Vote: Xtoxm

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 32
Unvote: Xtoxm

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 137
FoS: _over9000, FoS: Xtoxm

(Posted as Westbrook_Owns_U)

Post 284
Vote: insanepenguin02

(Posted as Westbrook_Owns_U)

Post 379
FOS: Amished Post 614
Vote: hambargarz Post 624
unvote; <BR>HOS hambargarz <BR>vote Xtoxm Post 650
Unvote: Xtoxm Post 684
Vote: CarnCarn Post 747
unvote vote ClockworkRuse Post 857
Unvote Vote Xtoxm Post 887

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm Post 26
Unvote, Vote: militant Post 95
FOS: ClockworkRuse Post 110
FOS: GIEFF Post 177
+1 FOS: militant Post 209
+1 FOS: _over9000 Post 248
+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 341
FOS: Xtoxm Post 470
+1 FOS: GIEFF Post 474
Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 500
+1 FOS: Xtoxm Post 579
FOS: CarnCarn, +1 FOS: CarnCarn Post 651
Unvote <BR>Vote: CarnCarn Post 680
Unvote Post 768
+1 FOS Xtoxm Post 774
Vote: Xtoxm Post 882

Dipstick

Vote: GIEFF

(Posted as militant)

Post 28
Unvote

(Posted as militant)

Post 169
FOS: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as _over9000)

Post 235
vote: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as _over9000)

Post 240
Unvote Post 318
FoS Westbrook_Owns_U Post 342
FoS: xtoxm Post 376
MASSIVE HoS: xtoxm Post 385

Amished

VOTE: Elannaro

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 30
Unvote

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 57
Vote: infamousace2

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 121
Vote: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as SilverPhoenix)

Post 287
Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 494
unvote Post 574
Vote: magicrabbit Post 659
Unvote <BR>Vote: GIEFF, Unvote Post 825
Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 873

CarnCarn

Vote: Gieff

(Posted as RealityFan)

Post 43
Unvote, Random Vote: Xtoxm, FoS: Elennaro, FoS: militant, Unvote: Xtoxm Post 204
Unvote:Elennaro Post 230
Vote: _over9000 Post 252
FoS: hambargarz Post 669
Vote: Xtoxm Post 763

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 82
Unvote, Vote hambargarz Post 96
Vote: Militant Post 171
HoS over9000 Post 256
Mod: Any responses from those prods? Post 281
Unvote Post 305
FoS GIEFF Post 322
HoS Post 452
Vote: Xtoxm Post 467
Major HoS Post 485

Xtoxm

Vote Militant Post 88
Unvote Vote Inf Post 220
Unvote Vote Dipstick Post 382
Vote CR Post 451
Unvote Vote West Post 545
Unvote Post 666
Vote CC Post 670
FOS Gieff Post 689
Unvote Vote CR Post 877

GIEFF

FoS militant Post 146
vote: infamousace2 Post 189
HoS over9000 Post 254
unvote Westbrook (previously infamous) <BR>vote _over9000, FoS Westbrook Post 304
HoS Xtoxm Post 356
Vote Xtoxm Post 391
FoS hambargaz Post 431
HoS hambargaz Post 456
Unvote, Vote: hambargarz Post 541
Unvote Post 543
Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 589
unvote, Vote Xtoxm Post 692
Unvote Xtoxm Post 784
Vote Amished Post 823
Unvote Amished Post 840
HOS: CarnCarn Post 908
FoS hambgargarz Post 912

By Chronology

Post Number

Poster

Vote
Post 19

Elennaro

FoS: clockworkruse
Post 22

infamousace2

FoS: ClockworkRuse
Post 26

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm
Post 28

militant

Vote: GIEFF
Post 30

urielzyx

VOTE: Elannaro
Post 32

infamousace2

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 41

Elennaro

Vote: urielzyx Unvote. UnFoS.
Post 43

RealityFan

Vote: Gieff
Post 57

urielzyx

Unvote
Post 82

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 88

Xtoxm

Vote Militant
Post 95

hambargarz

Unvote Vote: militant
Post 96

ClockworkRuse

Unvote Vote hambargarz
Post 97

Elennaro

Vote: RealityFan
Post 110

hambargarz

FOS: ClockworkRuse
Post 121

urielzyx

Vote: infamousace2
Post 137

infamousace2

Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 146

GIEFF

FoS militant
Post 157

Elennaro

Unvote
Post 169

militant

Unvote
Post 171

ClockworkRuse

Vote: Militant
Post 177

hambargarz

FOS: GIEFF
Post 189

GIEFF

vote: infamousace2
Post 190

Elennaro

FoS: militant.
Post 204

CarnCarn

Unvote Random Vote: Xtoxm FoS: Elennaro FoS: militant Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 209

hambargarz

+1 FOS: militant
Post 220

Xtoxm

Unvote Vote Inf
Post 230

CarnCarn

Unvote:Elennaro
Post 235

_over9000

FOS: ClockworkRuse
Post 240

_over9000

vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 248

hambargarz

+1 FOS: _over9000
Post 252

CarnCarn

Vote: _over9000
Post 254

GIEFF

HoS over9000
Post 256

ClockworkRuse

HoS over9000
Post 281

ClockworkRuse

Mod: Any responses from those prods?
Post 284

Westbrook_Owns_U

FoS: _over9000 FoS: Xtoxm
Post 287

SilverPhoenix

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 304

GIEFF

unvote Westbrook (previously infamous) <BR>vote _over9000 FoS Westbrook
Post 305

ClockworkRuse

Unvote
Post 318

Dipstick

Unvote
Post 322

ClockworkRuse

FoS GIEFF
Post 341

hambargarz

+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 342

Dipstick

FoS Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 356

GIEFF

HoS Xtoxm
Post 359

insanepenguin02

FOS: Xtoxm
Post 376

Dipstick

FoS: xtoxm
Post 378

insanepenguin02

Vote: Dipstick
Post 379

Westbrook_Owns_U

Vote: insanepenguin02
Post 382

Xtoxm

Unvote Vote Dipstick
Post 385

Dipstick

MASSIVE HoS: xtoxm
Post 391

GIEFF

Vote Xtoxm
Post 431

GIEFF

FoS hambargaz
Post 451

Xtoxm

Vote CR
Post 452

ClockworkRuse

HoS
Post 456

GIEFF

HoS hambargaz
Post 467

ClockworkRuse

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 470

hambargarz

FOS: Xtoxm
Post 474

hambargarz

+1 FOS: GIEFF
Post 485

ClockworkRuse

Major HoS
Post 494

Amished

Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 500

hambargarz

Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 541

GIEFF

Unvote Vote: hambargarz
Post 543

GIEFF

Unvote
Post 545

Xtoxm

Unvote Vote West
Post 574

Amished

unvote
Post 579

hambargarz

+1 FOS: Xtoxm
Post 589

GIEFF

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 614

magicrabbit

FOS: Amished
Post 624

magicrabbit

Vote: hambargarz
Post 650

magicrabbit

unvote; <BR>HOS hambargarz <BR>vote Xtoxm
Post 651

hambargarz

FOS: CarnCarn +1 FOS: CarnCarn
Post 659

Amished

Vote: magicrabbit
Post 666

Xtoxm

Unvote
Post 669

CarnCarn

FoS: hambargarz
Post 670

Xtoxm

Vote CC
Post 680

hambargarz

Unvote <BR>Vote: CarnCarn
Post 684

magicrabbit

Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 689

Xtoxm

FOS Gieff
Post 692

GIEFF

unvote Vote Xtoxm
Post 747

magicrabbit

Vote: CarnCarn
Post 763

CarnCarn

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 768

hambargarz

Unvote
Post 774

hambargarz

+1 FOS Xtoxm
Post 784

GIEFF

Unvote Xtoxm
Post 823

GIEFF

Vote Amished
Post 825

Amished

Unvote <BR>Vote: GIEFF Unvote
Post 840

GIEFF

Unvote Amished
Post 857

magicrabbit

unvote vote ClockworkRuse
Post 873

Amished

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 877

Xtoxm

Unvote Vote CR
Post 882

hambargarz

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 887

magicrabbit

Unvote Vote Xtoxm
Post 908

GIEFF

HOS: CarnCarn
Post 912

GIEFF

FoS hambgargarz

[GIEFF]

Amished, I'm about ready to just vote for FL. Are you on board with that? And you, ham?

[GIEFF]

Vote: fuzzylightning

I have no desire to wait for replacements. Bus or defend, ham; it's up to you.

[GIEFF]

unvote

[GIEFF]

CC, I trust Amished's claim, and I trust your claim, as it came when you couldn't be sure there wasn't a real cop if you were scum. That leaves ham and FL.

[GIEFF]

If CC is the real cop, then Amished is the real doc.

[GIEFF]

You are right, CC. What I should have said was:

"If CC is the real cop, then there is a doc."

I just think that if FL was the doc, he would have claimed by now. He has posted 6 times in other games since Amished's doc claim.


If FL does claim doc, and if you are the real cop, then I think we win (assuming the fake-doc claim is the goon, not the roleblocker).

If FL claims doc, then either he or Amished is scum. However, the fake-claim is likely to be the goon rather than the roleblocker, as fake-claiming is risky. Therefore, ham would be the roleblocker, and if we lynch the roleblocker today (again, assuming you are the real cop), then we win.

After a RB-lynch, you would get to investigate either Amished or fuzzy tonight, and the real doc would be on you, to ensure you live to tell the town your results. I would be killed (as mafia killing the real doc would obviously implicate them as the fake doc, and you would have doc-protection), but your investigation results would mean a win in 3-way lylo.

[GIEFF]

So that leaves a GIEFF/FL scumpair
but it doesn't make sense given GIEFF's close lynching of CR.

I didn't actually lynch him though, did I? Couldn't GIEFF-scum say "I plan on lynching FL" but then decide to lynch Xtoxm anyway? It's not likely, and would be seen as scummy, but the possibility is there, and if you were town, you would not rule it out in this manner, saying "the only pairs that could be left are..."

I think you just don't feel as though you can force a lynch on me, and you don't want your scumbuddy to get lynched, so you are avoiding the possibility of a me/FL scumpair, as if you said you believed it, you would likely have to support a lynch of FL. Every other pair contains a townie you think you can force a mislynch on.

So the only pairs left that it could be is FL/CC or GIEFF/CC or Amished/CC
With Amished being a real doc.

I don't understand. Are you saying that if Amished ist he real doc, these are the possible pairs? Why does one of these pairs have Amished in it, then? And why is CC in all these pairs? CC being the legit cop is what ensures there is actually a doc, and if CC is mafia, then we are no longer 100% sure there is actually a doc.





FL, if you don't have time for an in-depth post, and if you can read this, please just tell us your role.

[GIEFF]

I am fine with you voting CC, as it is impossible for Amished/FL to be the scum pair (as it would mean CC is the real cop, which means there IS a doc, which means ONE of Amished or FL has to be town).

If you're scum, there can't be two more scum who pile on, and if CC is scum, then good choice.

[GIEFF]

I'm not against an FL lynch, if everyone wants to lynch him, thats fine with me (it ensures that at least

1 townie

is on board with it). But I'm hesitant because we are at lylo and you (GIEFF) are a suspect in my books and want him lynched.

Don't you mean 2 townies?

[GIEFF]

If you did not discount the FL/me pairing, then CC, FL, and myself would appear equally often in your possible scum pairings, i.e. in 60% of them.

You should not discount the FL/me pairing. Bussing in 5-player lylo is a valid strategy, and I would not rule it out if I were scum.


Your entire statistical argument for voting CC is based on the fact that you discounted the FL/GIEFF pair, which, as I said, I think is because you don't think you can force a lynch on me, and because you don't want to have to lynch FL.

I don't buy the reasons you have given for discounting the FL/GIEFF pair.

[GIEFF]

You're right ham, dont' know why I missed that. It's 100% CC without the FL/GIEFF pair, and 75% CC with the FL/GIEFF pair, FYPOV.

But FMPOV, either you or CC (or possibly both, I guess) is scum, so this doesn't help me at all. Again, go ahead and vote CC if you want to; it is impossible that you both are townies.

[GIEFF]

FMPOV:

I am townie.

Case 1: CC is fake cop. You are not both townies, as CC is scum.
Case 2: CC is real cop. You cannot be a townie, as there is a real doc, which means there is just one villager. I am that villager, and because you are not the doc, you are scum.

[GIEFF]

Good answer.

[GIEFF]

OK, so we can be almost positive there is actually a real doc; I very much doubt two scum would claim doc.

So if CC is faking cop, there is no role-blocker, and to stave off a lynch, CC claimed one of the two possible power roles, and chose correctly.

If CC is real cop, then one of the two docs is scum, and ham is definitely scum (from another's perspective, either myself or ham is scum).

As I've said before, if ham is the roleblocker, then we win the game. CC is the real cop, will be protected tonight, and able to investigate one of the fake docs so we win tomorrow.



FL, why did you assume there was a roleblocker in the game?

Amished, why didn't you tell us who your predecessor protected night 1?

[GIEFF]

So you assumed CC was really the cop. Why?

[GIEFF]

CC, if you think Amished is the real cop, then lynching ham is the better play here, as he is more likely to be the roleblocker. If we lynch the roleblocker (and if you are the real cop), then we win.

[GIEFF]

EBWOP: I meant if you think Amished is the real doc.

[GIEFF]

CC, what makes you believe Amished over FL?

[GIEFF]

CC:

If you are correct and Amished is the real doc, then you will just have to choose between me and ham tomorrow. If we lynch FL and he really is mafia, then you will KNOW Amished is the real doc, and the mafia would obviously kill Amished, leaving us in 3-way lylo.

So you can make the decision today or make it tomorrow, but the decision will have to be made. I think it is likely that ham is the roleblocker, so if you make the decision today, WE WIN, regardless of who the real doc is.

This is all assuming you are the real cop, but if you are, there is absolutely no reason for you to be voting for FL right now, unless for some reason you think the RB would be the one to fake-claim doc.


I agree ham's behavior towards the doc-claim is very suspicious, as if ham is trying to tell FL to claim doc without us seeing it (although I'm sure they worked it out in their quicktopic if they are scumbuddies)

[GIEFF]

As fake-claiming doc is risky, I feel as if they would have the goon do that, and let the RB claim town. If you are the legit cop, CC, which I think you are, then I KNOW that ham is scum, and while I think I believe Amished more than FL, that is much fuzzier.

Think about it; if you were scum, wouldn't you make the goon fake-claim doc and try to fly under the radar as the RB to ensure you can keep blocking the cop?

[GIEFF]

Amished, it doesn't matter if it's not possible to know who is the roleblocker. The best play is to lynch the person with the greatest probability of being the roleblocker, and that is ham.

[GIEFF]

ham, if you were town, you would not have put FL at L-1 so casually. If Amished was scum, town would have just lost.

But the fact that Amished did not hammer confirms him as town. If Amished were scum, FL would be town, and a hammer by Amished would win the game for scum.



I am ready to lynch FL now; he is confirmed scum. Amished, if we get the roleblocker, then DEFINITELY be on CC tonight. If not, then I think a random choice is best.

I won't hammer until you guys are ready, though.

[GIEFF]

Oh, my bad; I thought it was CC's vote. You're right, you aren't cleared. Glad I didn't hammer.

So now we wait for CC, although a no-vote by him does not clear him in the same way it clears you. It would just mean that IF FL is town, then CC is town, too.

[GIEFF]

I think I didn't question CC at the time because I already knew that yours was the vote on FL. If you hadn't voted yet (as I thought was the case when ham voted FL), then a vote for FL would lose the game if he is the real doc.

ham's behavior is not as suspicious now that I realize your vote was already on FL.


CC's vote was only on for only 2 hours, and I don't think you or ham even had time to see the thread while FL was at L-1, so your point about FL being more likely to be scum because he wasn't hammered isn't a valid one.

Similarly, CC still hasn't posted since ham put FL at L-1, so we can't be sure that he wouldn't hammer if he had the chance.

I think I am the only non-FL player to post without voting while FL was at L-1.