Newbie 694 (over)

[hambargarz]

confirmed

[hambargarz]

Confirming that I received pm. I'm looking forward to playing this game, but I may be in another time zone than most of you.

me 2...

me 3

[hambargarz]

I'm from Australia so beat that, I'm probably the one most separated by time.

vote: Xtoxm

For being the furthest away from me

[hambargarz]

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.

[hambargarz]

I like how the votecount is given in a post because it shows the current votecount at a particular moment in time. Alot of other games, the mod posts it at the top of the page which I find a bit annoying when reading back to keep track of where the votes lie. If ever I mod a game, this is how I'll do it

[hambargarz]

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

Unvote

Vote: militant

[hambargarz]

@infamousace2: It's a bit early to call lynches. Longer days are better for the town. In my experiences a day can last for about a couple of weeks.

@ClockworkRuse: His post gives a certain vibe. So I'll do my best to explain. Here's the quote..

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.

He is explaining that the move to encourage discussion is pro-town. Which kind of goes without saying. Mentioning the word pro-town just strikes a chord with me. As a suspicious way to word it. He could have said, "good idea, lets discuss blah blah" or simply, "he's encouraging discussion" not something like "you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour". That just sounds unnatural to me. Immediately following is a fence sitting sentence.

[hambargarz]

self voting, to me at least, is generally an anti-town play.
There are some instances where it is good though (ie. gambiting).
At this point in the game, I see you're self vote as neither one or the other because it doesn't escalate much.

In my last game 2 people self voted. The context was much more significant than here however. (Though the behaviour was seen as anti-town rather than scummy).

Asking stuff like this strikes me as a bit scummy. You want the town's position on your behaviour? That only helps you if you're scum in my opinion.

FOS: ClockworkRuse

[hambargarz]

In my last game we had a couple of lurkers that didn't post. They survived right till the end with townies lynching other townies in the meantime. At the end at lylo with 3 people left (all 3 were originally lurking. 2 were replaced), the remaining lurker was lynched (on the reasons for lurking). Turned out the lurker was town and scum won the game.

So I say lynch lurkers earlier rather than later.

[hambargarz]

Exactly. If they're town, they're not being helpful anyway. So if you have no really good reason to lynch a non-lurker, you'd best lynch lurkers.

It's tricky because a live townie is better than a dead one even though they are lurking. It's usually best to bide our time and lynch people acting scummy. We have a lot of time to discuss. You never know you could lynch a townie who is about to be replaced, or even worse a pro-town role. That said, leaving lurkers too long, can end up like my last game, where you only have 2 people out of 5 posting, and that doesn't help the town at all.

[hambargarz]

You could also say that pro-town roles have a reason to lurk/keep a low profile. Problem with lynching a lurker, is the lurker has no opportunity to role claim before he's hammered.

[hambargarz]

I check on the message board every few hours...

but I feel until we no lynch...or until someone is lynched...there isn't much to talk about

Does this mean you won't contribute until someone is lynched? how are we going to lynch scum without any discussion?

[hambargarz]

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

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.

[hambargarz]

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

What this does is confuse people though. It makes it hard for people to see you're position.

[hambargarz]

Unvoting to make someone happy?

Backpedaling like that is a bit scummy looking.

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.

This strikes me as very scummy. He's defending GIEFF which implies a scum buddy relationship. But moreso he is saying guy's attacking him look scummy, why do they look scummy? is it simply on the basis that they are attacking militant? why is militant the innocent one in your eyes considering his scummy behaviour?

FOS: GIEFF

[hambargarz]

In reply to this post...

Thanks for the explanation. It was only a random vote though, opinion did not come into it because I choose GIEFF's name at

random

at the beginning of the game during the random voting stage. There was no opinion behind my vote, if I remember correctly I choose him because his name is all capitals, something totally irrelevant to the game.

I think you may have misunderstood the explanation. I think what uriel was saying is that either you are scared of being lynched, or you're original opinion regarding keeping your random vote on was not really you're opinion. He's not referring to your random vote, rather you're reasoning to leave it on, and then later change that opinion. I'll quote the original opinion to clear things up.

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

You later went against this, by unvoting when asked to. This is a contradiction and therefore is suspicious.



The other possibility is that you felt pressured or are scared of being lynched. This is scummy looking because it was only 1 player and you changed your opinion just because he didn't like it. Here's some further quotes that imply this.

Why exactly is unvoting to appease someone scummy?

Fine Unvote

Happy now?

That is why this is also suspicious

This post is also answering GIEFF's post 178. So in short, no I don't think the logic is faulty/scummy.

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

Why are you interested in me particularly when you haven't found anything? Are you rereading with a particular preset bias to me? Why would I be more "interesting" than any other person here?

The only answers to these questions I can think of is OMGUS. Which is also a bit scummy

[hambargarz]

Oh the irony... Votes me because I am lurking. You had not posted in 5 days when you posted the above message. You was the one that was lurking. I was trying to keep up at least, you was just not posting.

I don't know about not posting in 5 days, maybe 4 at the max, could you point out the post numbers? In either case, I'm not accusing you of lurking, I'm accusing you of active lurking. The post I replied to did not progress anything and was fence sitting on the only issue brought up. This is scummy as it looks like you are trying to please everyone. Scum do not want progress yet feel pressured to post so as not to look suspicious. This is what it looks like here to me.

If you are referring to me in your second sentence then I don't recall ever defending GIEFF, I could be mistaken though, I have no time to re read and my memory is not that great. I don't like the bolded question. It is a "leading question" (I think that is the right expression). My supposed scummy behaviour is subjective, just because yourself and Xtoxm think I am scummy that does not mean everybody else shares your views.

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.

Again examples of the leading questions you use. Regarding the first sentence, I had found something I did not like, you of course did not know this at the time of your post, you presumed I had not found anything, you subsequently went on to presume that I was re reading with a "preset bias" towards you and my motivations were OMGUS. Something about it all just doesn't sit right with me...

I don't see any "leading" here that goes beyond you're post.

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

What else can one conclude from those words? You admit you are re-reading with a bias to finding stuff on me.

[hambargarz]

Sorry for the excessive quoting, but I feel this is the best way to highlight some things in it within context.

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.

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.

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 suspicous? 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.

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

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 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 would like to get EVERYONE's thoughts on the above 4 reasons.

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.

[hambargarz]

Post 3: Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: 26

Post 4: Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: 95

October has 31 days if I remember correctly thus making it a five day gap in which you did not post.

You are skipping post 51 and 55. That was on Thursday. So it's more like 3 days apart. Not to mention there's a weekend in there where players slow down anyway. You are distorting things here.

+1 FOS: militant

[hambargarz]

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.

I 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?).

Calling people scummy for questioning logic without "rock-solid reasons" is BAD for the town;

I'm not asking for 100% concrete evidence, that's impossible. But I don't find the counter argument in post 178 satisfying. It's based on a misinterpretation of the "change of opinion". The original backpedalling was in regards to leaving the RV on rather than WHO was RV'd, post 178 did not address this.

we should welcome frank discussions about the reasoning behind votes. Do you agree with this, hambargaz?

Yes I agree. You need to give good reasons though, otherwise it just looks like defending someone.

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.

The wishy-washy part for me is his position on clockwork's motives. The part about "I feel it's pro-town" was directed at starting discussion in general, which is the forced part. Of course promoting discussion is pro-town, militant is stating the obvious. You put these together and it's a strong case of active-lurking

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?

The actual action or issue on theory is not significant, but what is significant is the motives behind the posts. "appeasement" wether it be about theory, voting or lynching is still "appeasement". ie. The scum is still trying to look good for everyone. Evidence of this can be seen in the smallest things and is significant, even though the actual context seems mundane and insignificant

[hambargarz]

Can anyone tell me if anti-town = scummy. [Besides ICs?]

* puts hand up *
Anti town does not equal scum. My last game is a perfect example of this. We had 1 extremely anti town townie. He hammered a townie before discussion, when pressured with votes the next day he self lynched, making the day last only 36 hours. it was day 2 and the town had no information at all and the scum had a free ride to day 2. He was not the only one who self voted that game too. Anti-town play all around, not surprisingly the mafia won it.

[hambargarz]

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?

[hambargarz]

_over9000 did not vote ClockworkRuse citing a reason for not wanting to jump in with it. ie. Worried about how his vote would look. If he would come off too aggressive etc.

_over9000 changes his mind after his actions were disliked

_over9000 voted, on the grounds that ClockworkRuse was not near lynch. ie. over9000 did not want to significantly change things or pressure ClockworkRuse with his vote. This makes the vote reasoning wishy washy in nature.

+1 FOS: _over9000

[hambargarz]

L1 is understandable, caution should be advised, but otherwise, being near lynch shouldn't be reasons to hold off a vote in my opinion. Being nearer to lynch creates pressure.

[hambargarz]

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

[hambargarz]

Last game when someone said something like this about me, I was first NK
thanks alot Xtoxm

[hambargarz]

I'm responding to a prod, I did not say anything recently mainly because I'm waiting for infamousace2 to show up or _over9000 to reply to the points brought up against him. In either case my vote and suspicions remain as they were. I am fine with lynching either but prefer _over9000 as he seems to be the more likely scum from where I'm standing.

[hambargarz]

- hambargarz made a good point on page 8 with the whole GIEFF and militant thing, but attacked militant for mentioning interest in him without saying anything, very over-reactive, considering militant hasn't said anything bad yet.

Just to clarify, I wasn't attacking militant for having an interest me, I was attacking militant there because he didn't give any reasons why. He said he would reread the thread with a particular interest in me, which led me to think he didn't have any reason and had to look one up. If militant was truly scum hunting he would reread the thread with an equal interest in everyone. The question is, why look at me in particular? (answer: because I attacked him first)

I will be V/LA 12/3-12/4

I have no idea what this means

[hambargarz]

EBWOP: that last quote should be from CarnCarn, not SilverPheonix

[hambargarz]

Is _over9000 going to be replaced? If he is, the replacement is going to have to fight hard to turn this wagon.

MOD EDIT: _over9000 will be replaced in 24 hours if he doesn't post and isn't lynched

We have some time, 2 weeks, It would be nice if _over9000 comes back. But seeing as he probably wont be back anytime soon, anything he would say probably wouldn't change things and nothing seems to be moving without his presence, perhaps we should lynch him as it would be a pretty short game for his replacement.

[hambargarz]

I'm not against ClockworkRuse's call to wait for a defense, hence my lack of disagreement with his post. Like I said it probably wont change things, but any discussion is good. Waiting right til deadline has some merit in this case as long days always help the town. We don't really have anything to lose by waiting.

I suggested a lynch mainly to spare a potential replacement a very short game and to get things moving again.

I was prodded by the mod due to lack of posting, but find I have not much to post until over show's up. From my position it looked like some kind of action was needed rather than waiting as I was. Seeing as he remains my number one suspect I naturally advocated his lynch.

[hambargarz]

Dispstick: Obviously pushing for a lynch of me, for m previous character. In fact, all his posts so far have been about my character. It's quite annoying how the fact you keep trying to make up all this odd logic. Most of it's just been "I think he's scummy because I think he's scummy" logic. Or my character's inactivity and wanting to push the day faster. He jsut keeps trying to avert attention from himself to the easiest person. IMO, Scummy.

Dipstick did not really have a case on you at all, what interests me is your reaction and wording. Dipstick's averting of attention away from himself is not necessarily a scum tell. You mentioned he is targeting the "easiest person", I assume you mean yourself. Is there a reason you see yourself as the "easiest person" ? If you are town why would the odd logic and made up facts of a scummy looking player like dipstick "annoy" you? ie. It's as if you don't trust the town to see this for themselves, like you have something to worry about and hence be annoyed.

Not sure if I've FOS'd you already, but

+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U

Elennaro: Short, sweet posts, stating ways to help the other characters, usually. No real suspicious activites from what I've skimmed over. IMO, Unsure.

Elennaro has not contributed recently (verging on active lurking), I'm still waiting for his promised player analysis from a while back which I have not been able to find on reread.

Silver Pheonix: His current character is doing nicely. Haven't noticed much posting, but I haven't either, and neither have most people in this game :/. IMO, Unsure.

Yes, Silver Pheonix, like Uriel has successfully kept under the radar. He's not one of my main suspects, but I'm especially wary of players like this.


Oh and you forgot analysis on me BTW

[hambargarz]

That was a quick replacement

MOD EDIT:

The only things that I have for certain is that you are not both scum. It has to be either or (if any of you).

How do you know this?

[hambargarz]

This isn't necessarily WIFOM, but more or less it is active lurking

I wouldn't say it's active lurking, I would just say it's a newbie post. The argument on GIEFF's protown posts is WIFOM (i've also wondered what to think of them too). This, his forum rank and him not knowing about bussing also imply this.

[hambargarz]

That was quick, One time there was 5 days to go till lynch, I logged on the next day and Dipstick was lynched.

I echo GIEFF's comments on Xtoxm and insanepenguin.
Will post more later, don't have much time at the moment

[hambargarz]

infamouseace2 was the second most suspicous player after militant on day1. I felt he was suspicious due to his blatant refusal to contribute anything. Naturally Westbrook has inherited these suspicions and remains a top suspect.

[hambargarz]

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?

Interesting choice of words, I wouldn't use the word "extremely" scummy, militant was simply the most scummy of all the candidates I never said he was super duper scum because of that. Again, As I have repeatedly explained, I "immediately jumped" on him for reading back with a bias on me without saying what it was that tipped me off as being scummy, It implied he didn't have anything and was just targeting me in particular because I was attacking him. His actual reason, ie. me being lurky, didn't really have anything to do to it.

I agree with recent comments on Xtoxm, but although Xtoxm's comments have been short, they have conviction and are not wishy washy which make him less (somewhat) less scummy.

[hambargarz]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

There's a danger of getting into WIFOM with that, but Ye, you always run the risk of that when you agree with other posters like I have. But his reason was compelling so I had to. Xtoxm saying he was not suspicous of me piqued me a bit that he may be scum trying to buddy with me, though he hasn't shown me anything else since and as I've written above, his posting style has a pro-town feel to it from my perspective (although you guys have a different opinion on that).

[hambargarz]

Hmm it seems as though I answered most things in my first post

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.

From my previous post, I thought it was an FOS, I guess an IGMEOY is more fitting because it was a pretty weak point. (Xtoxm obviously saw this too). You brought up the fact that it was not mentioned again, but I don't think it was worth mentioning again because it's such an insignificant point. None the less the IGMEOY is real.

[hambargarz]

I was going to wait for more rereads before posting but thought I'd mention this now because I'll be away from machine for a coupla days.

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.

[hambargarz]

Care to explain what you mean by your last sentence?

I got this vibe from posts, 326, 330 and 332. This motivated me to look back at your posts.

What exactly are you implying here?

I realised that infamouseace2 and Westbrook are the same character, which made me curious. I'm implying a scum buddy relationship between the two or at least a reason to suspect one.

Well, you defended him by saying he acted with conviction, and thus it was protown. You both seem really confident that you are both town, which is somewhat strange at this point, I guess. If you're going to defend xtoxm's posts as protown, you're going to have to explain why if people ask you.

I didn't say Xtoxm is town, and I'm not defending him. I'm just disagreeing with some of the points regarding his concise posting style, which I see as decisive rather than wishy washy. I do agree with the other points, ie. that Xtoxm's hammer is suspicous as I've said before.

[hambargarz]

...There's a scum relationship... between two people... who weren't in the game at the same time? Please explain this.

I meant between CR and infamouseace2/westbrook

[hambargarz]

It was scummy because there was still alot of time left before deadline.

[hambargarz]

Please be a little more clear with what you are trying to say is the point I'm trying to make.

Yes it was a bit unclear, I didn't properly proof that post.

Let me summarise what I was saying (hopefully) more clearly. I got a feeling that CR was defending another player with posts 326, 330 and 332. I reread back and saw CR turned a blind eye to infamousace2's anti-town behaviour. This stood out as CR had usually quickly jumped on other players suspicious behaviour. I've noticed that infamouseace2 and Westbrook are the same character. So this implies a possible scum relation ship between CR and infamouseace2/westbrook

That's not a reason. You don't hang around waiting for deadline once a lynch has been decided on.

Any extra discussion time is good for us. I think you may have assumed too much in thinking the lynch was decided. Dipstick could have put forth better analysis on other players, analysis that, now, we may have missed out on.

[hambargarz]

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.

I don't see it as similar because Xtoxm was more specific. Xtoxm is saying something about the NK fits CR. If Xtoxm IS just saying random stuff, his reason wont be compelling. When he eventually gives his reason we can judge based on that. I have some idea what he'll say, but I'll wait for him to post it.

In contrast, Militant just said "I'm rereading with a special interest in Hambargarz" (paraphrased). There's no reason given for it, and it's so general that ANYTHING Militant found can be used as an excuse.

-------

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?

To be honest Xtoxm is low on my scumdar. I agree with points raised but
he's not getting my vote for now. The points I agree on are the long period of no activity and the hammer. I thought this was clear, if there was an exception I would have said so.

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.

See above, As far as Xtoxm is concerned, his early posts gave me a pro-town vibe (as I've said). Other points I agree with but not enough to make him my only suspect. I have other suspects but need more posting to see if they check out. I'm not deflecting attention from Xtoxm (I agree with some points brought up on him) I'm simply not developing tunnel vision on him.

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

See above, Everyone is suspicious. Though there are people who are MORE suspicious from where I'm standing

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.

You may not have meant it, but I'm sure the rest will agree, the posts carry that meaning. If I disagree with a point made on Xtoxm and you ask me to say why I disagree, you are essentially asking me to defend Xtoxm's behaviour. By saying WHY I disagree with a point on Xtoxm I am unavoidably defending Xtoxm against that point. I would rather he defend himself. That way, whether the point if valid or not, we all get information

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?

I don't see the contradiction and I haven't changed my mind. Long posts can be good, if they are concise and above all CLEAR with DECISIVE action. It's not about how long the posts are it's about the quality of the information and efficiency in which it's expressed as it saves everyone time whilst allowing more informed decisions. And longer discussion doesn't mean longer posts, it means posts from MORE people ie. discussion involving multiple participants ie. Back and forth communication. (and yes I know this post is contributing to the problem, but I have to address GIEFF's points)

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

Ah yes, I missed the brackets there when reading.

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."

I was the first to mention he was actually "active lurking". An extention of a point brought up about his response to CR's self-vote.

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.

Ye, I was going to change how I play the game, but I guess I haven't. I guess it's just my voting style. Everyone has one. Old habits die hard.

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

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.

[hambargarz]

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: ...

I see what you're getting at here. ie. Because I have a similar voting pattern as a game in which I was scum, I'm probably scum in this game right?

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.

[hambargarz]

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

Actually, as long as were looking at my past game, its a perfect example of what I meant by long unclear posts which confuse the town. 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.

[hambargarz]

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.

I don't think I'm being inconsistent. Maybe I'm not being clear. Longer discussion is always good. I'm hesitant to state broad sweeping rules like that, but I can't think of many situations where it isn't. Perhaps the only time it isn't good, is if the discussion doesn't have any content maybe, but generally longer days are good for the town. Isn't it obvious? I feel like the IC here.

On the point of post ledgibility (which I see as a separate issue, ie. they are not mutually exclusive). Length of post doesn't matter, as long as it's clearly readable and has a clear direction. It's possible to have a short post that is wishy washy just as it's possible to have a long post that's easy to follow and has clear direction. I good example of what I'm talking about is AGear2ax's posts in my last game. It's a good example of what NOT to do.

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

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?

I thought I answered this. To rephrase: there are good things that came from it. ie. Dipstick is confirmed town so we can act on the posts on day 1 with that in mind. This has lead to a dialogue with Xtoxm from his hammer. What more is there to say? It goes without saying that lynching a scum would be better, but this seldom happens day1. Lynching a townie still has a use. Look at it this way, say there was no lynch, wouldn't our position today be pretty much the same as day1? (well maybe a tiny bit better from the night kill, but you get my point)

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

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?

I don't quite understand where you're going with this. Leads are good. They encourage discussion (wether they are good leads or bad leads). Townies are allowed to put different weighting on these leads. As I have, the point about his short posting doesn't hold weight with me, but hey that's my opinion. I do agree with the points on the hammer and long period of silence (there is a fine line between efficient posting and laziness).

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

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?

I'll answer with my quote

Ye, I was going to change how I play the game, but I guess I haven't. I guess it's just my voting style. Everyone has one. Old habits die hard.

To rephrase, I'm aware that people found that behaviour scummy, tried to avoid it, but happen to have fallen into my old habits. I posted what I thought, when I thought it, I was less concerned if people thought the manner in which I posted it was scummy.

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

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?

I'll re-answer again with my original post.

I have other suspects but need more posting to see if they check out.

To rephrase, I'm waiting for them to post more before acting on my suspicions about them. It doesn't help to blurt out every inkling you have and who you are watching as that will clue the scum players in, and they will adjust their behaviour accordingly. At that point any findings you have on them will have a heavy WIFOM component.
CR was one of the players I was doing this with. But I decided to post my case so far anyway.

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

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?

No it's not happening here fortunately. I'm happy the discussions here are productive. Yes Xtoxm's refusal to answer the question is anti-town. This is what I was saying before about Xtoxm's point against CR being more specific. Being decisive like that (as opposed to militants general point on me) is more pro-town because you're sticking you're neck out. If you can't answer for it, you look pretty bad. As we are seeing with Xtoxm.

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. It could be that my answers were unclear to you, but I already answered these and asking them again looks like padding.

[hambargarz]

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.

Of course I'm right .

Anyway, this isn't the first time you're defending me. I said I had my eye on you before for this. This looks like an attempt at scum buddying or perhaps you are seeing a wagon forming on you and wish to implicate me if you flip scum.

FOS: Xtoxm

Can we have the other players aside from CR, Xtoxm and GIEFF please speak up

[hambargarz]

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.

Ok, I admit I'm finding your train of thought hard to follow. Length and number of posts don't really concern me, neither does it in relation to time. What is important is stimulating discussion and content. ie. Quality over quantity. Xtoxm's posts had content and action, it just so happened that they were short. It was obvious to everyone what he was doing and why, there is no need for an essay if you're reason is clear, compelling and logically sound. (NOTE: this comment applies to Xtoxms early posts, not his recent behaviour)

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

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 honestly thought I had answered your questions sufficiently the first time. I reposted the quotes to show you. I even rephrased them with explanation just in case you still were unclear.

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.

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.


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

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?

I've already answered this, There's nothing more to say, other than to repeat myself, ie that's how I play. Are you really asking, why do I not play like you would? well that's because I'm not 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. This is WIFOM, As I could also say that if I were scum, wouldn't I have a motivation to AVOID my previous behaviour as it was seen as scummy?

To answer the last part of your question more directly, If I thought the points I brought up on others warranted a vote above militant, believe me, I would have changed vote. I mostly vote who I think is the most likely candidate this doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have suspicions on other players in the mean time. In short, Militant was my number 1 candidate and remained so, I didn't change my vote because he was the most likely scum, changing my vote to lesser suspects would not be honest and confuse the town as to my position.

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

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.

To regret your vote is to say you did something wrong. I don't think I did anything wrong, Dipstick was simply the best candidate at the time. I would vote him again in the same situation. 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

As for you're points on what good came from a town lynch, it's not limited to xtoxm, but I can't say what because I can't tell the future. Looking back at day1 events with Dipstick confirmed town will cast other players actions in a different light in future days.


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

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

...

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

Besides the fact that I am supporting some points AGAINST Xtoxm as well as bringing up one of my own, Yes there are some similarities, what is your point? Are you saying it's scummy?

NOTE: gtg, this post is a bit rushed I may have missed some points, will address them when I get back

[hambargarz]

Nice analysis Amished, some interesting points raised

So, since I know the 7 of us are alive, 2 are ic's, and were more pro-town in my views, Gieff was most pro-town IMO

Whilst I agree GIEFF's play has been very pro-town, I wouldn't say he has been the most pro-town. There are alot of points he has been jumping on that aren't really constructive which raises a few flags. I wouldn't drop the possibility that GIEFF is scum trying very divert attention to other players.

Finally, at something a bit more recent than day1, (I kinda rushed through d2, though much of it is kinda weird and I'll try to come back to it). In post 474 from Ham, I thought that your definition wasn't right. (it's regarding the regret from GIEFF and lack thereof from ham). Regret is wishing something didn't happen, even if you'd do it over again if you were put in the same position. Knowing now that we lynched an innocent townie, I regret that it came to that, as I'd much rather have lynched a mafia.

This is symantics, I'm not going to get into an argument on this but I will say, If you are going to regret you're vote everytime you lynch a non-mafia member, you're going to regret the majority of your votes, mislynching is unfortunately part of the game and is necessary to get more information.

Finally, since I'm firmly of the belief that inf/Westbrook is the scummiest of all the people we have left, I will Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U

I obviously don't buy into the Westbrook/Me scum buddy relationship. But I do agree that Westbrook is the most scummiest. Mainly because of infamouseAce2's behaviour and the overlaping with a possible CR/Westbrook scum partnership I'm suspecting.

I think it's time for Westbrook to come back into the game

Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U

[hambargarz]

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.

There is no case to be made either way that that play is me-scum or me-town. I can equally argue that the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is a correspondence with my last game. ie. Playing like I did last game means that I have the same role. Which in my opinion is quite hard because people tend to play the same way anyway.

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.

I didn't mean it that way. I meant the questions you were asking were not constructive. They were not constructive because they were belabouring points that were already addressed. I said they were "on the edge", as in still within the realms of what a townie would do on a scum hunt, but "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"

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.

Let me clarify what I meant by "talking about your previous votes that way". I should have been more specific. What I meant by "that way" was talking about regretting the previous lynch. I never said I regretted my actions day 1 as you have. To me, this is a minor scum tell along the lines of expressing regret on a NK, expressing regret on the loss of a town power role, etc.

[hambargarz]

If one (or both?) of the ICs are scum, this is going to be a classic example of why lynching based on NKs is a terrible strategy early on. I'd prefer to disregard discussion of the NK at the moment. In fact, notice that the ICs haven't said anything about experience related to the NK.

GIEFF, I'll get to your question shortly.

I think it's quite unlikely both IC's are scum. 1 possibly, but 2 would be unfair on newbies.

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.
I'm not sure if I answered this question or not, but if I haven't, I will just say that I don't regret voting for the lynch yesterday, because militant/_over9000/Dipstick was by far the scummiest lynch candidate. To regret this would to regret playing this game correctly, and I certainly don't do that.
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.

Yes, this is what I mean by pushing it. Some questions GIEFF was asking are approaching the edge of constructive discussion.

From the way I read that, I would say ham assumed you would claim a town perspective, and that that post by itself is not an indication that he "knows you are town." He assumed you were town because, well, if he assumed you were scum, you would know militant was town and the whole argument would be moot.

Exactly, I must have missed this question from GIEFF. I was kind of making a snide comment there. I'm making no assumption on wether you're town or scum, my assumption was that you would have a town stance. I should have put a wink with it or something.

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?


damn just realised post 500 has screwed up quote tags, that quote below the

tag is my response to amished quote. The quote boxes should be reversed.

[hambargarz]

Impressive researching GIEFF, very pro-town of you. You are either a good townie or a very dedicated scum. I'm leaning to the former given you're recent activity.

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:

Yes, my view is different, but they still aren't similar here's why... I'll use you're quotes

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.

Here Xtoxm is giving a reason for his increased suspicion. The first sentence also states that he wasn't suspecting CR but became increasingly more suspicious, pressumably from his more recent behaviour.

Contrast this to militant's post

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

Here we have no reason given at all. There is no though process given as to why he's rereading with an "interest" in me. It just says simply, he is suspicous of me. Reading this in it's early context was also suspicous because he should be rereading with a suspicion many, if not all other players.

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. This reason is irrelevant because it comes AFTER he reread the thread in order to find it, can you see the paradox? The point raised, was if he had that reason in his head BEFORE he went back to reread (which would have justified his "interest" in me) WHY did he not say it originally? He had no answer to this. This strongly implies he went back with a specific target in mind but had no real reason to find him scummy (as scum would do).

So ye, in summary, I disagree with points 1 and 3. So I don't believe I'm being inconsistent. How militant approached it stuck out to me as towns would always explain with findings and thought processes.

Neither have W_O_U or hambargarz. Why do you think I should be voting now? Do you think I should be voting now? What about the other two?

I have haven't I? *goes back and checks* Yes I have in post 500. Similarly, W_O_U has an excuse as he is V/LA for the holiday period

Westbook (narrowly) remains my top suspect at the moment, this is because of infamousace2's

very

suspicious behaviour day1, CR (another suspect) ignoring/questioning-cases-against infamousace2's/Westbrook. It's just unfortunate happens to be away at the moment.

[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'm entitled to my own opinion just as you were when you stated you're case against me. Give the town some credit GIEFF, they can make their own minds no matter what I say. 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. 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.

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

(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?

I've explained every instance of suspicious behaviour from you. I believe I've explained them all quite clearly so I don't understand the question. The question shouldn't be WHY am I suspicous of you, it should be WHY have you given me reason to be. If you are referring to my conflicting points concerning arguments for you pro and anti town as they relate to me suspecting you of being scum, the correspondence isn't so black and white, anti-town and pro-town player doesn't directly correlate to scum and town. It's true I have points swaying back and forth, I'm leaning town at the moment and haven't voted you, as you know, but that doesn't stop me from having suspicions against you. Things aren't always so black and white and opinions change as discoveries are made.

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?"

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

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?

I IGMEOU'd the first time he did it, and FOS'd the second time. People defending other people unsolicited is suspicious to me. Xtoxm has done some questionable things, but overall, he doesn't fit my profile for scum. Everyone has their own profile for scum. Everyone has their own list of scum and town tells. It's not productive for them to always explain all of them in detail as this nullifies the tells. Without giving too much away, Xtoxm simply doesn't match my criteria, Asking me to go into more detail and explain my process helps scum more than the town.

I can relate this also to you're line of questioning that asks players to address points on other players. You've done this with me and I've spoken up about it, and you appear to be doing it with Xtoxm. It is as if you are manipulating me and Xtoxm into defending each other's actions, possibly setting up a scum pair. Wouldn't it be more constructive play to let each player defend their own case rather than pressure other people to?

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

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've always had suspicions on Westbrook, I think I had been clear that he was my top suspect, it was pretty much a vote for him. I probably should have voted earlier but got caught up in the Xtoxm thing. Amished post reminded me of the bigger picture, that their are other suspects (more suspicous suspects). My vote is partly to express this as well.

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

And in summary, here's my responses to GIEFF's summary of "valid" points

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

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.

There are many points that I disagree with Xtoxm, you are referring solely on the fact that I don't see him as number one scum suspect, ie, disagreeing with YOU. Alot of my defence for Xtoxm has come from you asking it from me. (And I've already expressed my reluctance to do so.) And even if I HAD always agreed with Xtoxm on everything, what does that prove? It simply would mean that I agree with Xtoxm on everything.

[*]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

Please read my posts carefully, I've explained this alot of times. Militant did not specify anything, Xtoxm was specific.

[*]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

Why is this on the list of "valid" points?? This is a null tell and you know it.

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

I was one of the earliest to vote, after CR did. so this point is NOT "valid"

[*]ham recently voted for Westbrook without presenting any new reasoning; why didn't he vote pages ago

I'd say this is the only really valid thing to mention, I've already explained this however in this post.

[hambargarz]

I missed part of this post the first time round in my answer. I have something to add regarding the (second-most-scummy) part that I missed originally when replying.

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?

You're a bit jumpy here and taking that post a bit out of context, that post was from day 1. If I was implying you were 2nd most scummy, the situation is quite different now. Despite some suspicious behaviour on you're part you appear to be actively scum-hunting, so you are actually pretty low on my list of top suspects to lynch for now.

[hambargarz]

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 can see what you're saying here, but I don't really agree with you. In my opinion the town makes up their own mind and chooses for themselves wether or not to put any value on what I say. If you've chosen to interpret it your way, there's not really much I can do about that except state my own interpretation again and again.

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":

Ok, I'm beginning to see why you're confused here. Having pro-town play doesn't mean you are not suspicous. Scum can play pro-town just like townies can play anti-town. In fact, players that go out of their way to appear very pro-town is somewhat a minor scum tell I look out for. You'll note, that I'm careful to say "pro-town" rather than words like "town", "innocent" etc. There's a big difference.

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 thought I did answer you, anyway I'll answer again. Xtoxm is a bit low on my priorities as he's not acting that scummy in my opinion. My only interaction with him is to IGMEOU and FOS him when he looked like he was defending me. Whilst I don't agree with some points raised, I did agree with others, which indirectly pressured him to answer. Xtoxm's answers (to the original points) were pretty much what I expected and are verging between null-tell and suspicous, but not enough for me to suspect him over CR and Westbrook.

In fact, Xtoxm has continued to express his belief that I'm town, even after the suspicion it's drawn. A scum player would be careful to avoid behaviour that was looking scummy as they would like to appear town. This is consistent with Xtoxm's early play which I can't help but get town vibes from.

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 don't understand why you don't see it, other players expressed agreement with me on this point. I can't really explain it any clearer. Obviously I can't say for sure as I'm not standing next to him, but his play highly suggested it. Actually I would go so far as to say it was pretty much certain.


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?

And, I'll repeat my answer, Xtoxm is suspicous sure, but there's other more suspicous players. You can't start voting everyone in every direction you have to prioritise.

Xtoxm's first unsolicited defense earned him an IGMEOU. I could have FOS'd him sure, but his play read town to me. unsolicited defense is somewhat a minor tell anyway. Now later, Xtoxm does it again. Remembering his past IGMEOU, I turn my IGMEOU into an FOS because it wasn't a one off thing. My play is consistent and logical. I don't see any weight in these points you're making.

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?

Xtoxm is suspicious, just like every other player here. He wouldn't be my most suspicious though. I assumed this was CarnCarn's reason because I re-read all his posts and saw that this was the only thing he could have. And I've phrased the question that way to both confirm if I'm right or not, and to express suspicion of CarnCarn if it was indeed the case. It was kind of a scum-hunting poke to fish for CarnCarn's reaction, which you've kinda destroyed here, for reasons I'm not clear (ie, are you making a point here against me or are you protecting CarnCarn?).

[hambargarz]

I'm suspicious of Xtoxm for a number of reasons. The delay to answer questions is only one part. Here are the other ones:

1. Quick hammer before people had a chance to react to the Dipstick claim.

2. Blatant buddying/defending of hambargarz (Note: this is suspicious regardless of whether ham is scum or town).

3. Deflecting suspicion onto the other IC by suggesting the NK "suits him," without offering any semblence of an explanation until it was dragged out of him tooth and nail (this one could be tunneling on my part, though).

4. Major lurking while active in other games.

5. Calling CR scum for voting him (looks like OMGUS, more attempts to deflect suspicion onto anyone other than him).

And I'm sure I'm missing some other things, too.

I agree with points 1, 2, 3 and 5, with 5 being the most suspicous. OMGUS scum calling of CR was a bit of an scummy overreaction. This is more serious seeing as Xtoxm main reason for it seemed to be CR's innaccuracy of Xtoxm's posting behaviour, which is a scummy kind of reason too in my books.

NOTE: I was suspicous of CR and checked out Xtoxm's posting to see if CR was being accurate, it appears CR was exaggerating things a bit. I was looking at the dates and times of the posts rather than just the number of posts. Xtoxm DID take a 3 day rest during the holiday period, with a flurry of posts happening on the first day back from it in other posts. On this same day he posted on this thread, so no I don't think Xtoxm was neglecting this thread on Day 2 (I haven't checked Day 1 activity). So I don't agree with point 4.

[hambargarz]

I forgot to add in the last post

Was the site working for everyone during the past couple of days? It wasn't for me. I couldn't load it up at all

[hambargarz]

For clarification, I'm talking about this quote from CR, post 485

Major HoS Xtoxm

He's been posting other places on the site for the past four days and he has already acknowledged the questions he has ignored.

I'm calling lurking.

This post was made on 27 Dec, so the past four days is referring to
27, 26, 25 and 24
CR couldn't have meant 26th-23rd, because Xtoxm made a few posts on the 23rd.

So..
24th Xtoxm made 5 posts to 3 games, without posting this thread
25th and 26th Xtoxm was absent from all the games
27th There's many posts to many games, including 1 to this game.

Note though that the single post on 27th was made after CR's comment,
but one can argue that Xtoxm didn't get around to this game that day until after CR had made his post.

Anyway, since Xtoxm was absent from all games on 25th and 26th those days don't count. So really it was 2 days (if you count the 27th) that Xtoxm was posting other places than here.

The way CR worded it was that Xtoxm had been posting other places during those 4 days. This is why I was saying it was a bit exagerated.

Posting tendencies are generally 1 post every 48 hours not including weekends. Also counting the 27th is arguable. Because of this, While Xtoxm may have skipped over our game in relation to other, I don't see this particular instance as odd as CR has made it out.

I haven't looked at Xtoxm's behaviour before this, only the period outlined in CR's post (as I was investigating it)

@Xtoxm: What would you say are your primary reasons for suspecting CR .

[hambargarz]

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

Can't we just lynch him without a replacement?

You're right, it doesn't go down well. What's the rush? More discussion is always good. In my opinion a lynch on WOU is no means certain because alot of the case has built up in his absence. May I also note that you had similarly rushed the Dipstick lynch.

I've noticed you have been saying and doing things with blatant disregard to how scummy they look. This has lead me to believe you are actually town. But there's a line to be drawn somewhere. This post is quite an anti-town suggestion in my opinion.

+1 FOS: Xtoxm

[hambargarz]

Your switching votes from CR to Westbrook looks very opportunistic, Xtoxm, especially in light of you giving no valid reasons for doing so.

Agree. This is a compelling point for me (as opposed to some other's that have been raised)

[hambargarz]

Too Townie :badlogic:

Actually it's more like, "too scummy"

[hambargarz]

EBWOP: I meant to add, This has been a big factor in my town read from Xtoxm. I'm aware that the "too scummy" argument is dodgy logic which is why I have been a bit tight lipped about it. Xtoxm's behaviour has always had an apathetic vibe in regard to looking good and being diplomatic, his recent post 578 is different though, because there is a scum motive behind it.

[hambargarz]

That's you're word though, A scum motive can also be construed from it, ie. an attempt to limit discussion

[hambargarz]

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

Isn't this a bit hypocritical? You have been pressuring players to explain the details of their scum hunting, (an act of which can sometimes compromise the scum hunt). Hopefully now you see where I was coming from before when I did not want to divulge my reasoning in it's entirety. I did however provide a broad explanation for my actions for the sake of the town and I think you should provide this at least.

[hambargarz]

In regards to recent points put against me...

Could you clarify? This seems to be contradictory

I don't really see them as being contradictory, I had follow one way of thinking and haven't really changed it throughout. The confusion seems to have come from my wording. In post 110 I was not saying discussion was bad, I was saying is was scummy that CR had asked for the town's opinion on his action and wether it's scummy or not. True it was a form of discussion, but it wasn't discussion I could see as being constructive for the town in finding scum.

By the point of 155 you had already attacked militant for unvoting yet had let infamousace slide for doing the exact same thing to Xtoxm. Was there any reason for this?

Militant was the more likely scum at the time in my eyes. If I had changed and gone after infamousace, it would have reduced the pressure on Militant. Not to mention infamousace was absent alot of the time anyway.

In 177 again you are seeming to try to remove discussion by discouraging GIEFF to defend militant. You continue to hammer the point on militant many times (185,213,232).

I don't see this as stopping discussion. I just want to see players defend themselves, as this gives you better reactions to work off. Having another player defend another influences the attacked player's response.

So this was all before _over9000 replaced mlitant and acted more suspicious with the lie. So essentially you seem to be very sure that he is guilty, and even attacking others over defending militant, all over the fact that militant made one pretty innocuous post in response to CR as well as unvoting a *random vote that didnt mean anything* You were ignoring infamousace (who I'm replacing) who did the exact same thing and was probably shadier with the sarcasm comments and such. Did you stay with militant because they always had more votes and more people questioning them?

You're implying the evidence wasn't enough. It wasn't just the response to CR, it was the occasion he was caught out creating an artificial case against me. A case that was developed not from suspicous behaviour from me, but just because it was me who attacked him. I didn't stay with militant because other people were, he was simply the most likely scum at the time.

Infamousace was scummy yea, but there's a small probability his behaviour can be attributed to newbieness. What I had seen in militant was more solid. Like I was telling GIEFF, you can't vote for more than one person, so I usually choose to concentrate on the most likely targets first.

This especially concerns me with you considering your tendency to want to limit information being posted. Is this an attempt to cover your bases, I want to lynch but then I also exercised caution? It doesn't make much sense to me.

I wasn't sure what to do here, nothing was happening, alot of time had passed and no one was discussing anything. There was an argument for proceeding with the lynch (militant/over was unlikely to respond and it would have been a very short game for his replacement). On the other hand longer days are better, and waiting would promote discussion so I was all for that. As it turned out dipstick replaced, there was a bit of discussion, although the lynch still went through.

Isn't it patently obvious that the easy way out if one is about to be lynched is to attack the person with the next most votes? It doesn't seem to be odd at all that West was annoyed especially since Dipstick had no case.

A town player would be interested in finding scum for the benefit of the town, not pinning the blame on the person with more votes to save his own skin. If a towny presents good logical analysis on players is lynched, flips town, and his thoughts are used, that player has overall helped the town, even though he/she got lynched.

This vibed me sort of like a "oh no too bad x is dead" scumtell post for some reason.

I don't see this, and I DID think it was a quick lynch, I had literally logged back on and dipstick was lynched, there was still plenty of time for discussion. Many people have expressed these views openly through their posts, you can say these posts are scumtells too by that thinking.

BTW, commenting on the NK can be seen as a scumtell, however commenting on a quick lynch is not so.

You echo GIEFF's suspicions of Xtoxm (392) in the same post and then soon afterwards yet switches to another suspect (infamousace, post 426), and then defend Xtoxm because his comments have conviction and are not wishy washy (430). Even though he hammered an undiscussed claim.

GIEFF had the same question, I've answered him on these.

I think this is B.S. and possibly attempting to hide yourself and/or protect Xtoxm by virtue of attempting to argue for less information for the town.

It wasn't B.S. It's what I believe. If you don't agree with what I said even after reading my explanation, it means your mind is already made up, nothing I can say can change your mind here.

I wasn't going to defend Xtoxm because we need to see his own reactions and explanations for his actions. On the other hand I understand GIEFF needed answers for my actions so I obliged. (but still told him why I didn't like to do it).

Since you don't think anyone should talk about other players (i.e. defending them) unless it is an attack, what exactly do you think is important stimulating discussion? A bunch of people attacking each other in circles? I'm sorry but I do not understand this. And I still fail to see any "quality" in Xtoxms posts, however you refuse to defend him so I know I am not going to get an answer.

People attacking each other in circles can be good, but it gets to a point where it isn't helping, I told this to GIEFF, I made a point that his questions were repeating covered points which were verging on the edge of being pro-town and anti-town. ie. risking turning the back and forth into a circular argument.

I didn't mean to imply that Xtoxm's posts had "quality". What I mean by quality it content to posting ratio. having more content in less posts or shorter posts from more people, is better than less content in long, frequent posts by a few people. This is mainly because it makes the game easier to read and avoid confusion. My comments on this was in response to GIEFF concentrating on just post length and number of posts. I was trying to make a point that it's more than that that makes good discussion.

[hambargarz]

Whilst rereading, this popped out...

I'm suspicious of Xtoxm for a number of reasons. The delay to answer questions is only one part. Here are the other ones:

1. Quick hammer before people had a chance to react to the Dipstick claim.

2. Blatant buddying/defending of hambargarz (Note: this is suspicious regardless of whether ham is scum or town).

3. Deflecting suspicion onto the other IC by suggesting the NK "suits him," without offering any semblence of an explanation until it was dragged out of him tooth and nail (this one could be tunneling on my part, though).

4. Major lurking while active in other games.

5. Calling CR scum for voting him (looks like OMGUS, more attempts to deflect suspicion onto anyone other than him).

And I'm sure I'm missing some other things, too.

Why haven't you voted him? You haven't voted anyone or presented any suspicions of anyone else since, surely he must be you're prime candidate? I smell wishy-washyness.

FOS: CarnCarn

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

In fact, I've gone through and read CarnCarn's posts and they all have a fence-sitting, wishy-washy, active lurking vibe to them. Let me go through them going backwards from now..

Posts 640, 617
Don't contain any new information. Just promises for some.

Post 599 is borderline.

Post 582:

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

Normally I don't. This (xtoxm's posting/lack of posting) sounded like something that could be proven/disproven by checking Xtoxm's post history. I didn't think either of you would be blatantly lying about something that could be verified like that. I should have checked myself, it appears (but, you were both right, to a certain extent anyway).

The response to GIEFF is diplomatic and blatant fence-sitting offering no solid position anywhere.

Post 562

Yeah, I actually didn't notice W_O_U was up to L-1 until I saw the latest votecount.

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 (which, if true, is a very strong one). I'm not sure now what to think about Xtoxm lurking, but I think the other points are valid anyway. I haven't been paying as much attention to West (largely because he's been invisible for a while now). I'm going to go back and look at his posts again and what people are saying about them.

L-1 is generally claim-time, but I want to see if this wagon is worthy. First impression says it seems to have built quite lazily.

Another wishy-washy post, After reading this CarnCarn's position on things were no more clear and I had received no new information from it.

Post 547 is a repetition of another players question

Post 544 I've already gone over at the top of this post.

Post 536 No new information here, CarnCarn confirms he was V/LA previously, Says he's been observing things, and gives another promise to read up.

etc..

I haven't been selective with CarnCarn's posts here, These are literally every single one of his posts going backwards from now (I could even go on from where I left off, but I think my post is getting a bit long). I find every post containing one or a combination of 3 things:

1) space filler that is either repeated points from other players, stating the obvious and confirming things that don't advance the game (eg, promising rereads, confirming V/LA)
2) Wishy-washy or fence-sitting opinions that offer no clear position.
3) No new information, analysis, findings directly on other players.

All these are symptoms of an active-lurker.

+1 FOS: CarnCarn

CarnCarn has managed to hang quite low with this kind of posting. He's been quite low on my radar as a result. I find that usually the people you least suspect are the ones that are actually scum.

[hambargarz]

To tell the truth, my main suspicions Day 2 have been on CR.
CC because of his lay-low kinda approach and MR for reasons already stated.
I had highly suspected CR-CC scum pair because both were kind of laying low. And CR-MR because of the CR defense-like posts of MR (WOU at the time). I didn't mention anything about them earlier because I wanted to observe their behaviour without knowing I was watching them in particular.

Lately however I'm finding CR less suspicious and am tossing between CR and MR trying to find out which is more scummy. I'll be re-reading earlier posts by realityfan's and CC's more earlier posts to decide as I am already quite familiar with infamouseace/WOU/MR's posts.

[hambargarz]

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?

...

You (ham) seem to implicate MR, CC and CR all at once, state that CR was the main concern for your suspicions, mention a CR-CC scumpair, say that you're finding CR less suspicious, and then continue on to try to decide who between CR and MR is your most scummy. What are you trying to say, other than you're sitting in the middle of a field not knowing which banana is a fruit when you're surrounded by corn. Would you please elaborate on what caught your eye for all three of them being scummy?

Oh dear, I've made a bad typo, My original post was supposed to say that I was originally suspicious of a CR, but lately CR seems less suspicous compared to CC and MR. CC and MR are the two that I'm tossing between. I find CC's behaviour scummy, but not willing to remove my vote just yet as MR is also scummy. I will decide after my reread. Since Xtoxm has removed his vote, I see no immediate need to remove mine from MR.

So to clarify, its CC and MR I'm tossing between, not CR and MR

[hambargarz]

It's a pity there's a deadline that's accelerating things. CarnCarn's defensive reaction can be taken either as town or scum. But I find his reaction to FOS me in return a bit on the scummy side. Stating that it looks OMGUS doesn't lower it's "OMGUSness" it only shows that you were conscious of it before (being careful of how your posts look to people is another minor scum tell). This has made my decision between CC and MR a bit easier.

Unvote
Vote: CarnCarn

@CarnCarn
I'm trying to find the reason behind you're FOS. It seems that you are FOSing me because "it's much more possible now that I'm deflecting attention from a scumbuddy (MR or Xtoxm)". Could you state what it is that has made his possibility "more possible". It appears that it's only because I posted some points against you.

On a side now, does this mean you suspect MR as scum?
Also, saying that I'm deflecting attention from MR doesn't work, because I have been one of the main players stating suspicions of MR.

To answer CarnCarn's question, ie. "Why should he vote him

now

". My answer is to make your position clear. Not committing is scum behaviour because it looks like you want a back door to easily change your mind when it suits you.

[hambargarz]

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

Not sure what kind of information you are expecting to this one. I've only "followed" his vote twice, hardly suggestive of a pattern. And even if there is a pattern, it doesn't mean much, only that I have a similar line of thinking I guess. When the evidence is compelling people tend to vote based on it. I would look into the reasons for the votes and check to see if they are based on compelling evidence. It's another matter if I was following his votes for no real reason.

I would like to ask you a question, do you think the votes on CC are justified given the evidence and reasoning behind them?

[hambargarz]

Basically, you're accusing me of not writing longer posts here. All I will say is that quality is much more important than quantity. Longer posts don't make anyone more protown to me (and I've already had this discussion earlier in the thread).

I agree, but I didn't see much "quality" in what was posted. "Quality" being decisive action, strong positions and info or insights for scumhunting.

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

I did not imply that you were scum with MR; you being scum with Xtoxm makes much more sense. I don't think MR is scum;

It read that way to me. Here is the original quote:

... 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) ...

You are saying that my "scumbuddy" is either magic rabbit or Xtoxm, you are implying magicrabbit is a possible scum buddy, Now you say you don't suspect MR?

[hambargarz]

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.

I must say Xtoxm's recent behaviour has raised an eyebrow. He has said he has held suspicions on CarnCarn long before yet did not voice them. I find this "convenient" BUT, this is infact the tactic I have employed, I have targeted other players yet been looking and suspecting CarnCarn pretty much the whole Day 2.
Xtoxm has been quick to push the lynch on CarnCarn in response to the town generally supporting the case against CarnCarn. This is consistent with Xtoxm's earlier behaviour so I'm not sure if it's his playstyle or if there's a scum agenda to speed a mis-lynch (although this latter is a bit blatant and attention grabbing to be an attractive scum play).

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.

Given the deadline. I can lynch either Xtoxm or CC (if the town feel Xtoxm is a more probable case). In the case of a mislynch we will have a very good idea who is scum Day 3 anyway. But I would much prefer to lynch CC because he is looking the more probable scum and in the case of a mislynch would make us more certain of Xtoxm's guilt than it would if Xtoxm was mislynched.

-----------

Would be nice to have CR say something before deadline.

MOD: has CR been prodded?

he has now

[hambargarz]

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

[hambargarz]

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.

No I'm not sure, both could in fact be town.
I would much prefer to lynch scum today (which is why my vote is on CC, as he is the most likely from where I stand). I was just saying that in the unfortunate case of a mislynch, we will be better informed tomorrow.

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.

I WILL say that I think the case against CC has more weight than any on Xtoxm, MR or CR.

I would like to hear other player's position on the CC vs Xtoxm situation

[hambargarz]

though i'm a little disappointed Ham think's i'm scum.

It's always the people one least suspects. I've been getting a town vibe from you, but I see the danger in assuming too much about players. I think it's likely one of you two, right now believe CC is more likely to be the scum.

[hambargarz]

Hmmm, CarnCarn being a cop explains why he has been laying low. I dunno, something about his post convinces me.

Unvote

for now.
I would vote Xtoxm, but I believe he is at L1

[hambargarz]

Can anyone counter claim CarnCarn? Outing you're role is worth it to lynch a scum in my opinion

[hambargarz]

Jesus one of you hammer me. It was either me or CC, unless you wanna lynch the cop claim (which could easily be scum)

then hammer me.

Why did you mention the last part like that. It's as if CC being town is a certain because you are assuming we would hammer you next. How would you know this?

+1 FOS Xtoxm

[hambargarz]

Guys seriously, what are you waiting for?

I'm close to hammering, but would like other players to respond to CC's claim first. Especially CR

[hambargarz]

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)

[hambargarz]

Because clealry, this setup is garanteed to have a cop present.

That's the reason for the rhetorical question, If you flip town, CC's role isn't confirmed. Would any one be willing to lynch him? My guess is it will be the same situation as today.

One way of looking at it, is if we lynch CC, we at least learn more about other players.

[hambargarz]

Why is that a rhetorical question?

It's rhetorical because there is no right answer to it. Both yes and no would be justifiable

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?

Glad you asked, given the current VT claim from Xtoxm I can now say what I was thinking. Given Xtoxm's quick and decisive attack on CC combined with his tendency to call people to claim roles led me to believe Xtoxm to be a possible cop. Mentioning this earlier would have been anti-town as I would be giving away potential cop tells.

CC's recent claim and Xtoxm's inability to counter claim now casts his behaviour in a different light.

I conceded that both being town was a possibility. The reason it was unlikely is because of Xtoxm's "odd" certainty that CC was scum. If Xtoxm is town, he is quite experienced and we should take his opinion with alot of weight, which means CC was very likely scum (add to this my own suspicions which I outlined in my case against him). If CC is town, then Xtoxm would be very likely scum because of said, "odd" certainty and rushing/pushing for a mislynch.

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

I don't think it can ever be proven (short of lynching CC) without going into WIFOM.

[hambargarz]

EBWOP: regarding the first part, the question is also rhetorical because I'm making the point that Xtoxm flipping town, probably wouldn't change the town's opinion on CC compared to what they think today.

[hambargarz]

I guess I'm leaning towards thinking CC is telling the truth with the cop claim...
...
To MR: I'm pretty sure it's
xtoxm: 2 (CR and CC)
CC: 2 (MR and xtoxm)
MR: 1 (amish)
With ham and GIEFF not voting.

If you believe the cop claim, why is your vote on MR?

Also, with ham's points about xtoxm wanting to know roles, and xtoxm not claiming cop, wouldn't that make him even more like scum?

What I meant was xtoxm tendency to ask roles and his push for CC's case once it was raised with an "odd" certainty was what made me suspect a cop. His recent VT claim, has changed all this. So now it just looks scummy. See what I mean?

Also the business with the "hammer me bums!" is WIFOM, that's why I've avoided commenting about it. (Although asking for ones own lynch is anti-town on Xtoxm's part and introducing the WIFOM around it is a bit scummy. I don't see a towny player having a motive for acting that way)

[hambargarz]

Same here. The only things I can comment on (other than the vote on MR contradicting his belief of the cop claim) are alot of "if I were scum" kind of hypotheses and WIFOM, which is a pretty minor scum tell.

[hambargarz]

That's not a scumtell. That is the phrase used, regardless of whatever protective roles may or may not be present. NL gives scum a free nightkill. I assure, it's a standard term.

I know, but it's the only thing I can really mention in that post. Clearly the "obviousness" of this scum slip is eluding me.

Amish still looks pretty town to me.

I don't see how. If CC's claim is true, Amished actually would become one of my main suspects. (This is a big IF on CC's claim though. And there's the wildcard CR who's been invisible for a while)

[hambargarz]

To ham: How is me leaning away from his lynch and saving the cop (*if* he's telling the truth) if given just the two choices between a claimed cop/claimed VT scummy?.

Not quite sure what you mean here. I didn't say you were scummy because you were leaning more to Xtoxm than CC. If I somehow did somewhere I didn't mean it, please point it out.

I said that IF CC is indeed telling the truth, You (amished) would form one of my main suspects. Mainly because it clears CC and MR and GIEFF being a little low on my scumlist. Note, that I emphasised the big *IF*.

[hambargarz]

Been a bit busy during the weeked, (long weekend holiday over here). I have only had time for a brief catchup on everyone's post.

I can see that everyone has dropped the CC case, And it being quite close to deadline, We are deciding on Xtoxm or CR. It's a hard decision for me because they are both equal candidates.

CR was initially suspicious to me, I was initially suspecting a CR-CC or CR-MR pair. Recently he has dropped off my scum-dar, but this could be partly because he has lurked. He's a bit of a wildcard in my scumlist because he hasn't posted much to get a read on.

Xtoxm, has established a certain attitude here that can let him "get away" with alot of things. I initially had a town read on him because of the points I have explained (which still are compelling for me now). The Xtoxm-CC thing with CC's cop claim which I have decided to accept, puts Xtoxm in a suspicous light. But as GIEFF said, it's a possibility both are town.

Both are suspicious but since a decision has to be made, I will choose to lynch CR. I don't really want to hammer him though as GIEFF hasn't made his recent position clear regarding the two yet.

So...
I'll

Vote: Xtoxm

I believe GIEFF to be town at the moment, and leave it to him to decide who to hammer, as I would trust his judgement. But for the record, treat this as a vote on CR

I'll check back in a few hours, and if nothing has happened, I will change my vote and hammer CR.

As of today Amished and Xtoxm are high on my scum list.
CC could be lying, in which case CC-MR would be a logical conclusion, which explains MR's support of CC. But as of this moment, I think CC is probably telling the truth.

[hambargarz]

Ok, Whilst I was writing my post, GIEFF has made 3 posts in the mean time. So when I submitted I saw 3 new previously unseen GIEFF posts.

I believe my position still stands. I'll support both lynches, but I have decided on CR.

As you say, if CR is town, this will make Amished and Xtoxm quite suspicous in my books because of these points.

1) Strong case against CR by Amished considering he didn't mention anything about it before. Similarly Xtoxm's quick change in view regarding CR.
2) Xtoxm's recent votes have an air of wagon jumping.

[hambargarz]

Do you agree it has made Amished and Xtoxm look quite suspicous?

[hambargarz]

I believe that's a hammer

[hambargarz]

Care to report your findings CarnCarn?

[hambargarz]

I think we are at lylo today so my complete thoughts on this day are:
GIEFF is pretty low on the scum list
CC could be lying (NKing MR to help his case) but I'm willing to risk believing him given that cop claiming first is generally quite risky for scum.

So if CC and GIEFF are indeed scum, they played quite well and deserve to win.

So from where I'm standing, that leaves just Amished and CR/Fuzzy as the scum pair.

which is why I'm slmost certain sure you're not scum, same as with xtoxm.

Somewhat of a scumtell in my opinion. Scum tend to be more certain of scummy-ness and townie-ness as they obviously have all the information.
A townie wouldn't put so much certainty on his convictions like that. Either you are a master genius at reading people or you are scum that already knows.

You also said you were so sure xtoxm wasn't scum before he was lynched. Why then didn't you mention anything? You DID mention that you were getting town reads from him, but your posting in no way reflected the level of certainty you are expressing now.

CC's report will reveal alot, so I'm waiting on him

[hambargarz]

I would also wonder why CC posted, yet did not state his result, it takes a very small amount of time to do that and would help our discussion alot.

By saying something like "I'll get back to this" implies his post will take a while to compile. It takes no time to just state your night result and more time to fabricate one.
hmmm, fishy.

[hambargarz]

Going back to my thoughts on Amished and CR as a logical conclusion for being a scum pair. I've been looking back at their actions between each other. Amished could have easily have joined the wagons on either Xtoxm and CC on the previous day, he instead at the last minute attacked CR and almost got him lynched. It's either extreme bussing or one or both of them is town.

This would mean one or both of my 2 lesser suspected players are likely to be scum. I'm willing to believe CC for the time being which means my scum pair at the moment is GIEFF and CR. I agree a mass claim will be good, and may help me decide the validity of CC's claims.

Looking back it makes sense, We have limited attacks between the two, 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.

I don't know if posting "No result" would really have the same effect and I honestly had a lot more to say about it than time would permit.

Dunno, If I were a claimed cop and got no result, I would have blurted it out first post, but thats just me I guess.

HOS: CarnCarn

What's the HOS for?

[hambargarz]

Wrong. Amished did not start the wagon.

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. post 480

Is that the only "attack" on CR? I think it pales in comparison with you're cases on other players.

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.

I agree it was odd, but the reasons were compelling, CR wasn't posting. As it turned out he was having access problems, so the lurking issue is muddied now.

There are two factual errors in this quote. FoS hambgargarz for distorting the past.

I don't see it as FoS material, anyone can do it, And it is easily checked and will be by the player in question. I was a bit lazy with my post I admit going off memory, I should have been more exact. I still believe my post on Amished stands.

Because of this and in addition to Xtoxm's endorsment of Amished, I'm inclined to believe Amished's claim in the absence of counter claim.


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

Both the following quotes are referring to my post on Xtoxm vs CC, one or the other being scum

Does this logic still apply?

Does this logic still apply, ham? Care to give "the whole story" now?

I did explain the "whole story", see post 811

Basically the cop claim by CC kind of changed things a bit. The logic still applies to me, but it isn't as compelling given CC's cop claim.

[hambargarz]

Going back to my thoughts on Amished and CR as a logical conclusion for being a scum pair. I've been looking back at their actions between each other. Amished could have easily have joined the wagons on either Xtoxm and CC on the previous day, he instead at the last minute attacked CR and almost got him lynched. It's either extreme bussing or one or both of them is town.

This would mean one or both of my 2 lesser suspected players are likely to be scum. I'm willing to believe CC for the time being which means my scum pair at the moment is GIEFF and CR. I agree a mass claim will be good, and may help me decide the validity of CC's claims.

These paragraphs don't follow logically. Amished/fuzzylightning and GIEFF/fuzzylightning are both his scum pair at the moment, which is odd. Clarify, please.

In summary, I'm saying I initially suspected Amished/CR scum pair, but given Amished past behaviour has cast him in a slightly towny light, which has lead me to believe a GIEFF/CR pair (if CC's claim is to be believed)

[hambargarz]

Can I also add that GIEFF and CR have been the main instigators of the case against Xtoxm (A confirmed townie).

CR, Whilst absent most of the time, basically posted agreement with GIEFF and suspicion of Xtoxm throughout.

I would place my bet on a GIEFF/CR scumpair.
with CC/CR as a second possibility.
(CC/GIEFF is a possibility, but that would mean both scum have played diabolically well)

Since CR is a common element to both my scumpairs, I'm inclined to vote him. It's only that CR hasn't posted much so it's hard to get much of a read on him so I'm still not 100%.

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?

[hambargarz]

Wrong again. My long case against CR came just a few posts before MR's vote.

I found post 840, would that be the one you're referring to? Seems a major point is CR's buddying up to you and not answering questions as I said before, would you say these points are still influencing you now?

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?

I've made it quite clear that I've been suspicous of you throughout, the only thing stopping me from acting is you're protown actions, (i've said this). Today, it's a matter of logical deduction, I've moved a few people lower in my list and it leaves you quite high.

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.

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)

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.

Ye alot of people suspected Xtoxm, some more than others. I was reluctant to believe he was scum but one can never be sure.

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.

It was a simple question really, I don't really know the answer, I use that language to explain my assumptions and where they are coming from so you know what I'm thinking of at the moment, I would like you to correct me if I'm wrong.

From the answer it appears you are going either way. You are saying you have made a substantial case against him and were 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.

From the wording of this post, I feel you trust CC's claim more than Amished. If this is true, what is the difference between the two claims that makes you less sure about the other?

[hambargarz]

Seems like buddying with a confirmed townie and somebody who can't reply on the subject..

Dunno what benefit can be had from buddying with a dead townie, It's not like he can "lower he suspicion of me" or anything. I'm stating it to the town as a reason that weights my judgement. Dead townies opinions on people are valid, because their motivations are proven to be pro-town. Sure they can still be wrong, but they are still useful (compared to "alive" player's opinions, whose motivations are questionable)

[hambargarz]

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?

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.

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.

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.

I agree the that point 1 is the more likely scenario. Which a big reason for my recent suspicions of GIEFF. I've stated this from the beginning of this day.

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.

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)

[hambargarz]

Oops, forgot to add this

3) CC is fake cop, Amished is real doc. CC and ham/FL are scum.
...
[*]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.

I don't agree with this conclusion.
Point 3 not "unlikely" because CC was close to being lynched at the time. If he was scum, he would have seen he was going to be lynched anyway to a last ditch fake claim would be appealing. If he wasn't counter-claimed, it would add a strong reason to not lynch him, if he was counter-claimed, he would at least out the cop for his buddy before he was lynched. I see this as being quite possible.

[hambargarz]

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.

These 3 "distortions" are actually based on the one fact that I had missed post 840 which I already had admitted to. It wasn't like I was changing alot of facts all over the place. Rather it was that 1 post I missed that had lead me to those conclusions. I probably would have noticed it if you had posted more follow up on the issues raised, there's alot of text it's an easy mistake to miss a post, especially when they are very long and contain many ideas.

Are you talking about night 1 or night 2?

Yes both nights. It was kind of rhetorical question, I'll answer it myself to give my thoughts. I know Night 2, MR was a prime target too, 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.
Maybe they still saw MR as more of a threat (meaning they think CC's cop claim is believed by the town), Maybe it's something about the people you were targetting that was favourable to scum (ie. not them). Maybe CC is scum and NK'd MR to strengthen his cop case or maybe you (GIEFF) are scum and therefore are not targeted.

Will you make your quicktopic available after the game?

I don't understand what you mean here

I believe we can go back and forth like this GIEFF which I believe can lead to tunneling on both our parts, I am really waiting on CC or CR/FL to say something to get things rolling.

[hambargarz]

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

[hambargarz]

So I take this to mean you assume I am town?

I wouldn't use the word assume, as you can't really assume anyone is town. There's also a difference between pro-town play and actually being a townie.

In either case, In context, my point was not my own opinion of whether I think you are town or not, it was what the scum believe the town to view you as which would influence their NK choice.

[hambargarz]

No, I'm not on board with that, not yet anyway.
I really need FL and (more importantly for me) CC to say something.

We are at lylo, I have to be as sure as possible.
There's no deadline so we can afford to wait

[hambargarz]

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.

CC's claim was given when he was close to being lynched. I wouldn't be so trusting of his claim given the context. From a scum perspective he was already going to be lynched and a cop claim would be one of the few things that could save him. If there was another cop who counter claimed CC, then it makes no difference to CC as he was going to be lynched anyway. It actually benefits a scum-CC as it would out the cop for his partner.

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

I'm might be going out on a limb here, but a CC/Amished scum pair isn't that far fetched. I can imagine how the discussion between the two happened last night...

• Amished: Hey CC, looks like the town is believe you're cop claim.
  
  CC: Yea, I think I'm more safe. You on the other hand may be under suspicion tomorrow. You should claim Doc, that way we can kill MR, confirming my cop investigation. I'll claim I was roleblocked which will help support you're Doc claim. On top of that I don't have to give a result from last night's investigation, thus leaving the town with less information.
  
  Amished: Brilliant idea, stupid town, they will all fall for it. this is too easy.

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

[hambargarz]

Actually reading through what I had written, I was thinking, since we are at lylo, CC could have just faked a guilty result on another townie and won the game before the town realised they lynched an innocent.

hmmm, on the other hand, that would have sparked a confrontation between the target and CC, which may compromise CC. But I don't think this is likely. Because of this, I've changed my mind, maybe CC's claim is to be believed

but this doesn't clear Amished.

[hambargarz]

If CC is the real cop, then Amished is the real doc.

Hmmm that's true
So that leaves a GIEFF/FL scumpair
but it doesn't make sense given GIEFF's close lynching of CR.

So the only pairs left that it could be is FL/CC or GIEFF/CC or Amished/CC
With Amished being a real doc.

Hmmm CC. Hmmm, going to re-read for a second to check something
be right back

[hambargarz]

Ok I'm back from reread. Was checking something on CC, but as it turns out was a red herring..

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 didn't rule out this possibility because you can't rule out any possibilities. I'm just choosing the most likely. This is the main reason why I was asking you questions about what you think about CR being scum. I was trying to get you're position on CR to enforce/reduce this possibility. I'm also taking you're call to lynch FL today into account. I should have been clear, when I mention CR or FL, I really mean CR/FL as in they are interchangeable.

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.

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.

Oops, typo. I had edited the line before and not fixed the last line.
It's supposed to read...

.. only pairs left could be FL/CC or GIEFF/CC with amished being real doc
or Amished/CC (with both claims being fake as per post 958)

The reason why all the pairs have CC in it, because the only other pairs are
FL/GIEFF (which I have already discounted above) and Amished/GIEFF
but this last pair doesn't make sense, because CC would be a real cop and therefore Amished would have to be a real doc.

So you see, CC is looking quite likely from where I'm standing

+1 FOS: CC

This of course will all change if FL comes out with a counter doc claim, but I think this is very unlikely.

[hambargarz]

I'm about to vote CC actually.
But have to wait for FL on the off chance he will counter claim. I would also like the town to check my logic and see if it's correct.

[hambargarz]

Oh I forgot the combination of Amished/FL scum pair
this doesn't make sense either because CC would have to be a real cop which means either Amished or FL would have to be a real doc.

[hambargarz]

Don't you mean 2 townies?

Unless I count myself, but that doesn't really help me, I should have said at least 1 other townie on board with it.

I think CC is a better target than FL though.
Amished? your thoughts?

[hambargarz]

I don't see what's confusing about my actions.

I'll go through the possible combos

Amished/CC

- possible

Amished/FL

- not possible since GIEFF and I are not the doc and CC says he was roleblocked

Amished/GIEFF

- unlikely for the same reasons, will be proven impossible for sure if FL claims VT

CC/GIEFF

- possible

CC/FL

- possible

FL/GIEFF

- possible, but I'm leaning away from it because GIEFF was pushing his lynch, (was GIEFF bussing? maybe, but I don't think it's likely)

So here are the possible pairings
Amished/CC, CC/GIEFF, CC/FL, FL/GIEFF

Looking at it purely statistically, thats a 75% chance CC is scum.
Add on top of this GIEFF's actions against FL (bussing maybe, but risky play given FL's lurking), and GIEFF's actions throughout this game which everyone appears to have agreed as being pro-town. CC is clearly the better choice.

How can you argue with that? I don't know how you could have given that response Amished. It is as if you are turning a blind eye to the facts I have presented against CC (defending CC?). You have only disputed that an FL/GIEFF pair is not "unlikely" (Amished/FL is not possible) which is wierd, because I thought GIEFF is quite low on you're scumlist.

If my logic is wrong somewhere I would like someone to point it out, in case I am tunneling. Unless FL throws things with a counterclaim or someone points out a flaw in my logic, my vote will probably go to CC

BTW: I was reading back on CC's posts to check an inconsistency with his reporting, but as it turned out, there was no inconsistency. My previous argument against CC for his wishy washy posting and fence-sitting behaviour still stand however.

[hambargarz]

But I haven't ruled out the possibility of FL/GIEFF pair

The possible pairs are
Amished/CC, CC/FL, CC/GIEFF and FL/GIEFF
Ignoring my reads on you, That's still 75% chance CC is scum.

[hambargarz]

EBWOP: But, If FL is indeed the doc, it could be a possibility that I am in fact talking to 2 scum buddies right now too

[hambargarz]

it is impossible that you both are townies.

Is that true? I'm missing the logic here, Are you taking into account the possible scenario of FL being a doc? If you can prove that it is impossible for both of us to be town FYPOV then I will definitely vote him right now.

[hambargarz]

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.

Hmmm, I see. That doesn't help me a great deal because case 2 is contingent on me believing you are the other villager.

[hambargarz]

Damn, I knew FL would come in and mess things up with a doc claim.

I think we should lynch one of the "docs", we have a 50/50 chance.
I'm thinking FL should be lynched.
Because if Amished was scum he would know they had a roleblocker, he would therefore know if a doc existed before he claimed and would not have claimed otherwise.
The same can be said about FL, but Amished claimed first, which makes a big difference. a scum-FL would also have motive, because without his doc claim the possible scum-pairs are reduced (with a tendency to lynching CC). I'm leaning to a FL/CC scum pair at the moment.

There is a counter argument however that Amished/CC could be a scum pair. With no roleblocker and they are gambling on the chances that there is no doc or cop (way too risky, and therefore unlikely in my opinion)

On a side note, I don't think FL's target for protection was optimal. The mafia would not kill CC because that would confirm his role and clear MR. In a wierd twisted way, an NK of the cop would have helped the town today.

[hambargarz]

NKing a cop-CC would clear MR and we would have one confirmed townie as opposed to no confirmed townie today.

Would the "cop" like to say anything?

[hambargarz]

The best play is to lynch the person with the greatest probability of being the roleblocker, and that is ham.

This doesn't make sense, You have a 50/50 chance with lynching FL or Amished and you are suggesting to lynch me on the chance that I am the roleblocker? I must seem very scummy to warrant such a risk (ie, more than 50% chance I'm scum considering there's 4 other players). Add on top of this that FL or Amished could also be the roleblocker.

The way I see it, it appears the town believes me to be scum, Winning this game will be very hard considering even if we do lynch the right person today, tomorrow I will probably be lynched. My only hope is that either Amished or FL are the roleblocker and CC really is a cop so that my name can be cleared which I think is a long shot.

It seems CC and Amished are looking to vote FL and GIEFF is "kinda leaning" against FL though is also suggesting me for lynch. I was going to lynch FL anyway yesterday, so, for better or for worse, I'll

Vote: fuzzylightning

.

From my point of view either FL or Amished are scum. I also have 2 other players, CC and GIEFF, one of which must also be scum. Both are advocating an FL lynch over Amished (given GIEFF has not commited as strongly as CC). So there must be one scum wanting to lynch FL and a townie that just happens to agree.

I'm going against popular opinion here, but GIEFF still remains very suspicious to me. It's kind of like a gut feeling I get, although logic tells me to treat him as town. However if FL turns out to be the wrong guy and we lose, I'd just like to say that Amished/GIEFF would have been my second pick (but it's close).

[hambargarz]

Ye I was wondering..
I was posting at the time that votecount was posted so imagine my surprise after posting, I thought it was a hammer.

[hambargarz]

I am town.
...
I am scum.
...
Where was this "doesn't make sense" reason earlier in the day when the GIEFF/CR pairing was your first choice?

I am scum, but you're leaning back toward town for a reason that has applied ALL DAY.

People change their minds as they think about things. I'm simply posting my thoughts as they go along. As you can see they do kind of switch back and forth. Each time I explained why I was leaning a certain way. Like I've said, there are logical reasons why you are town but there are kind of gut instincts I have that tell me your scum.

What I'm wondering though ham, is why does your logic say to treat GIEFF as town? Just cause everyone else seems to, or from the way he plays? If it's from the way he plays, wouldn't your gut tell you that he's town too?

My gut tells me from the way GIEFF reacts to my posts against him that he is scum. My gut tells me from the way he words things he's scum. My gut tells me that his hesitation to vote CR is scum. Logically one can come up with excuses such for these, for example, over-defensiveness is not a scum-tell, The hesitation to vote CR was from the high risk lylo situation etc.. Logically GIEFF's was viewed as protown from alot of other players including confirmed townies, but my gut tells me it's scum play. etc etc.

Not to mention your numerous attempts to distort the past to implicate me (and your refusal to back down after you were proven incorrect)

I admitted to missing a post. I said this twice in posts, Hypocritically, it seems you have missed these also. How is that "refusal to back down"?

, or your odd behavior about the FL doc-claim, as if you were trying to hint at him to do so.

It's funny you support this argument from CC when he was actually the first one to mention it. I admit the possibility of FL didn't even enter my head until CC mentioned it.

Actually, I just realized that fuzzylightning has not posted yet, so it's possible that Amished is lying about doc claim. What I saw as lack of counterclaim in my quick read could just be fuzzylightning-doc's absence.

If fuzzylightning does claim doc... well, we see what happens then

These were the first mentionings of it. I think the argument for coaching is much more relevant to CarnCarn. It's wierd how you have singled me out. I was just agreeing that FL could be a doc (and I wasn't the only one). If you ARE town GIEFF, I would like to hear your comments on this.

I also noticed you ONLY Voted FL after I said we should lynch the roleblocker (i.e. YOU) first for an insta-win. The best possible time to bus your teammate is when you fear that you are about to lose the game if you are lynched instead, no?

I pretty much voted for him previous day (post 882). So no


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

Something I'd like to mention is GIEFF waited a whole day after my vote on CR. Even he posted after amished. This is wierd because GIEFF usually posts multiple times a day. It is as if he was waiting for another players reaction to my vote.

Also note, despite GIEFF's posturing about voting CR, he never actually did with intent to lynch. GIEFF even attacked me for voting CR and then tried to persuade the town to lynch me instead, which was an obviously flawed plan from any townie's perspective. 50% chance (FL) was much better than a 20% chance (Me). I think GIEFF-scum slipped and briefly forgot how uninformed townies are.

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

CC if you're scum, we've surely lost as I am leaning towards GIEFF-scum and GIEFF seems to trust you implicitly.
If you're town trying to make a decision (because I guess it's up to you), I'll say this;

If I'm scum, why did advocate CR/FL's lynch not just today but yesterday (I could have just hammered townie-Xtoxm)?

If I'm scum why have I been attacking arguably the cleanest player in the game? (and not just today)

Conversely, Why would I go against the Xtoxm wagon? Surely the path of least resistance for scum would have been just to agree and lynch him?

GIEFF, the most pro-town of all of us, with the least amount of suspicion was kept alive until now.

[hambargarz]

GIEFF, how did the killing and RBing go last night?

same question for you hambargarz.

I should ask you the same thing CC, without the RBing of course.

Will get back to GIEFF in a bit. Just posted to say I will be V/LA tomorrow but may get a chance to post on the weekend.

[hambargarz]

I notice ham didn't answer the question.

What question are you referring to?
I went through you're post and could only find one question directed at me. ie. Why am I leaning to you

I've already stated my reasons for suspecting you. To answer your question about why I'm leaning towards you over CC, is I honestly don't know. Both of you have reasons for me to suspect you but for some reason I'm leaning on GIEFF-scum at the moment.

As you say, hambargarz avoided even answering the question I posed

I thought your question was rhetorical. A non-serious question like that deserves a non-serious response. If you are trying to make something out of this, I can say the same thing about how you avoided answering the question when I returned it.

I am awaiting CC's "comments". For now, in the meantime, it seems CC is content to sit back and unless attacked directly, let other players post with him in the background. I've already posted about this and thought I would bring it up again as recent posts reminded me of it.

Here's how CR interacted with both of you on day 1
...

I see you have added your own interactions with him as well. More notably interactions where you have shown suspicion of CR. You haven't said it directly but If you are implying that these somehow lift you from suspicion it doesn't, as in addition to the bussing argument, it carries the same weight as a player saying he's clear because he defended a confirmed townie.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 42#1345342
Agrees with CR, and gives me an FOS because I called CR scummy.

I checked that post. I was attacking you for calling attackers of militant scummy not CR in particular. Your post I quoted was quite vague in who you were directing it to, you said "you guys". And I quoted it because that was the particular post I was responding to. If you were attacking CR why did you not simply say so at the time.

ham is uber-defensive, and again throws suspicion on me for questioning the militant case.

Thats your opinion, just as it is my opinion that it wasn't (I thought your reaction was over-defensive and has been all game). Ultimately it's up to CC to make his own mind up.

I repeatedly ask CR to tell me how he thinks about ham, as he hardly mentioned him at all after voting him.

I don't see what this implies, CR was flaking alot. If you are implying that I'm scummy because CR didn't mention anything bad about me, I can mention that CR/FL repeatedly has expressed a pro-tow read of you.

I find people generally don't like to answer questions like "do you think X is scummy?".

If I can just rant for a while...
Take you're reaction to me asking you about CR post 919. It was a simple honest question, I really had no idea of your position and wanted you to state it for the record. I could only find what I said I found, which is why I used the word "only". I also gave my current assumption ie. CR was low on your list. So you know what I am currently thinking. The word "only" was also used to give you a reason WHY I was assuming. I was wanting you to summarise all your position in case it had changed or if I missed something. Which is why I worded the question as "is it safe to assume ... ?". Instead you chose to take "only" as an attack on you and the only answer I could get from your response was "I suspect CR more than you do".

If you are scum this response makes sense, but if you are town, over defensive responses like this make it hard to question you and therefore get reads on you. (I know defensiveness is not a good scum tell, but in my opinion, in excess, it's anti-town)
... end rant.

[hambargarz]

responding to prod.

I had popped in a few times the last couple of days, but I haven't had much to post actually, I am waiting on CC to post something to be honest.

I don't really count CC's posts today so far as "posts". ie. I don't really see any of his posts actually advance things along, state a position or bring up a case on either me or GIEFF.

As he says, he's getting around to it. I'm sure this will all change once CC actually does post. But for now, its been me and GIEFF back and forth.

[hambargarz]

I will add that any votes that CC had on FL that day were removed in the space of a couple of hours.

Particularly the vote on 953. Which was removed after about 15 minutes. His excuse for removing was "realising" FL could be claiming. This would theoretically mean he was thinking about it and still reading after he had posted. Which is fishy considering how busy he always seems to be.

[hambargarz]

Ok here's a summary of my thoughts for both players throughout the game

CC: Earlier in the game, CC was playing very much in the background. I remember 1 or 2 valid posts that were well put and valid but alot seemed to be filling space. I have brought this up before and my position here remains. CC did pick it up yesterday after some pushing from players and it's a similar situation today. I feel that CC probably is genuinely busy recently and was having trouble posting, but his earlier behaviour I don't feel this to be true. And have an active-lurkerish feel to them

GIEFF: has had pro-town play and seemed to be doing alot of active scum hunting. I did overall get alot of OMGUS vibes from him though.

Now..

If I consider yesterdays behaviour towards the end. CC's position against CR was quite firm as opposed to GIEFF who only voiced mild support. Add to this, GIEFF made a very wierd suggestion to lynch me over one of the 2 docs, a much more risky play. GIEFF's suggestion looks even more suspicious in hindsight as CR has flipped scum.

So it's a bit of a close one here. The plays by both players yesterday point me to vote GIEFF. But the past play of both players make CC suspicious.

I wonder if there are any dead townies are still following this game. I wonder if the scum is painfully obvious to them and I'm missing some obvious clue somewhere. Will do a careful reread.

[hambargarz]

I don't think I was "as wishy-washy as possible". I did mention that I am poised to vote GIEFF over CC based on yesterday's play.

Majority of my points posted today and yesterday have been against GIEFF rather than CC anyway. I would think my position was quite clear. I simply mention that CC is suspicious too and suddenly I am wishy washy.

Post 1065 is an example of the "OMGUS vibes" I get from GIEFF. Any post that contains any points against him are met with "no you are scum" kind of posts. I think it's evident in all our interactions.

And as I've said before, it was NOT risky. I didn't know if FL was scum, although I was pretty sure, and if we lynched you yesterday it would have been an automatic win. I didn't have the same benefit you did of knowing FL's role.

To say this, is to say GIEFF is pretty damn certain I'm scum. ie. More than 50% sure. Being so sure most certainly warrants a vote against me.

I should ask why hasn't GIEFF voted me yet having been so sure? I can only say it's because GIEFF is looking at a possible lynch on CC based on what I do. And here is some evidence to support that...

At the beginning of today there was back and forth between us.
One can see how GIEFF changed his tune around post 1048 when I started to post a point against CC. GIEFF then switches his attention from me to CC in the following posts 1049, 1050 and 1051. (why would he do this if he was so certain I'm scum). I then raise a point against GIEFF in 1064 and he switches back to me (and it's not the first time this kind of thing has happened)

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

I voted him in lylo

This is why i specifically mentioned "towards the end". There was a wagon on CR/FL towards the end of the day that GIEFF, comparatively, showed least support. GIEFF was also the only one NOT to vote CR/FL on the wagon that got him lynched.

GIEFF mentioned he technically voted for him in post 952. Keep in mind that GIEFF "as scum" knew CR/FL would be in little danger of being hammered having seen Amished and my posts. GIEFF also removed it fairly quickly and without reason (about 3hrs later) after CC appeared and voted. A pretty safe buss in my opinion that GIEFF can pull out of his sleeve at just a time like this...

[hambargarz]

"to be honest" is scum-speak for "I'm lying, so I'll say I'm being honest so it sounds more genuine."

I don't agree. It's a figure of speech that everyone uses. I'm sure you could find a counter example in this game from one of our confirmed townies.


If CC doesn't show up, I think we will be forced to lynch him.

[hambargarz]

lol
I don't know if you're actually being serious about this or just passing time.
I don't think this point holds much weight in my opinion. I would think CC would be of the same mind, though I can't speak for him.

Since theres nothing else going on, I'll entertain this point..

I found one.

Well there you go. I did say "a" counter-example, "a" being singular. Because really that's all you need to break down the rule of "to be honest = scum speak".

Unless you are saying that the amount of times you use it is related to how scummy you are ? Then how about variations like, "I honestly think ..." or "Honestly, ..." etc.
To me they are the same thing. Unless you are saying no, that it's only that magic combination of exact words that means they are scum?

[hambargarz]

"to be honest" is scum-speak for "I'm lying, so I'll say I'm being honest so it sounds more genuine."

ham: 2 uses of "to be honest" (once to explain why you weren't suspicious of xtoxm, and once to explain why you have been away from the thread)

So are you are saying that me-scum was lying about being not being suspicous of Xtoxm? Why would me-scum BE suspicous of Xtoxm? (as me-scum would know for sure if Xtoxm was scum or not)

[hambargarz]

I got town vibes from Xtoxm from the reasons I stated, ie. he was concise, to the point. had solid opinions and posted without caring about pleasing everyone, being diplomatic or looking scummy. I was surprised so much people thought he was scum. Towards his lynch I was influenced by this and begun to doubt my own read on him however.

I can see a few examples of Amished using "honestly". I haven't looked in depth to find others, but I'm sure they would exist. Amished is confirmed townie no?

What I'm getting at with my posts is, you can't make general rules like that.

1) Scum tend to play the same as they would as town. Even if they differ by a small amount, I would think their manner of speaking would be the last thing to change.
2) I'm not sure how much research you have done, but using examples just from this game is too small a sample group to come to any conclusion like that.
3) Correlation Implies Causation

[hambargarz]

This isn't conscious. It's subconscious.

I understand correlation and causation. I think there is a reasonable explanation for cause here, though. Scum is aware of the need to be believed more so than town is, so it more likely to use words like "to be honest" when describing their own thoughts. It makes sense.

Unless you think there is a more reasonable explanation, something that causes people to both be scum AND to use "to be honest." I very much doubt that.

Hmm, an intelligent response here. It's made me think about it. Perhaps you are on to something.

As for reasons for a townie using it. I can only give my own reasons behind my useage. From memory, It came from people questioning why I was not supporting the Xtoxm-scum theory as strongly as others. All I could really say was what I had been saying, ie. Getting town vibes, etc. I was questioned further and all I could really say at that point was that I honestly believed that. That's not to say everything else I say was not honest, it was more to add emphasis. I guess it was the "just believe me" kind of attitude you mentioned.


BTW:
CC has used the word "honestly" alot. Does your rule of thumb apply here too?

---------

ham, if CC and I cross-voted each other right now, who would you lynch?

I don't think there's a simple answer to this because context plays a large part.

If it were to happen right now, if CC's reasons were acceptable, and you failed to produce some compelling points against CC (ie. compelling enough to outweigh my own points against you), then I would hammer you. Same thing vice versa. So, ye, it depends on the manner in which you vote and your reasons.

That probably wasn't the answer you wanted to hear though. So say both of you hypothetically cross-voted each other, without ANY reasons given or any further posts until deadline, and you both voted right this second. I would hammer you (GIEFF) as I am already leaning your way. (Although in this hypothetical situation CC would look very suspicious as he would have hypothetically come out of lurking just to vote with no explanation, but this is beside the point)

I would like to ask you the same question. If CC and I voted each other with no additional reasons or posts. Who would you hammer?

[hambargarz]

Vote GIEFF

In the unlikely event CC does return.

I'll change my vote in 24 hours to lynch CC if nothing changes.

[hambargarz]

he's my town-buddy.

Blatant buddying

*vader voice* I find your faith in CC disturbing

+1 FOS GIEFF

[hambargarz]

CC. GIEFF is scum. vote him or else.. I'll vote you!

[hambargarz]

Vote CC

Times up

[hambargarz]

Now that the game is over I can give my thoughts..

It was a close call between CC and GIEFF for me towards the end. GIEFF's play towards the end of day 3 (wanting to lynch me over 50/50 chance doc, meaning would know roleblocker exists/CC was cop) made me suspect him over CC. Add to this, it appeared GIEFF was quite trusting of CC so getting a lynch on CC would be quite tough. (it had occured to me that perhaps GIEFF was giving this tunnelling image to trap CC however)

I was pretty truthful in all my posts. I never lied though I didn't mention the whole story in my posts for scum hunting reasons.. I stated I was going to vote GIEFF (and not actually voting) really I was waiting to see how CC would jump on either of our wagons to get a read on him. I suspected this was also what GIEFF was doing, having not voted and with his point about "honestly" talk. ie. Setting a trap for CC as it were. As it turned out CC didn't post so no reads were possible..

GIEFF's OMGUS on me could have been mainly due to his tunnelling on me. It was probably due to my mistakes as well as a townie. I probably clouded things by unintentionally acting too scummy, did other townies find me as scummy as GIEFF did? GIEFF's tunnelling on me and assumptions about CC/Cop/RB was also another reason I suspected him over CC.

My only real, compelling point that maintained suspicion for CC was his past play being active-lurkerish. CC's bussing of FL was a good move by CC as it made me suspect GIEFF more (as he was less decisive in his posts). His lurking made it hard to get any other "real" points on him. Ironically, his lurking towards the end of the game almost got him lynched as it would have forced me an GIEFF to vote him.

In hindsight, perhaps it was wrong to suspect GIEFF over CC. GIEFF had pro-town play throughout and that's harder for scum to fake in spite of GIEFF's suspicious behaviour..

[hambargarz]

Very sorry, ham. I was almost positive you were scum.

No worries, I thought were scum too. If you had good logical reasons for suspecting me you don't really have anything to be sorry about.

I think townies should lynch lurkers early. in lylo it makes everything very hard. As a rule, I think I mentioned it earlier in the game, be very suspicious of people in the background, the people you least suspect..

I was genuinely intrigued by GIEFF's point about the "honestly" wording. Reading CC's posts we see it plenty of times (more than anyone I think). And I used the words when mentioning I was V/LA which wasn't entirely true (though I wasn't going to mention that whilst the game was in progress). I knew CC used "honestly" alot, which is why I asked GIEFF if "honestly" counts in his theory (but being careful not to mention CC). I then suspected GIEFF more when he didn't mention CC's useage of it at all.

[hambargarz]

Same thing, I had a town read on Xtoxm and at one point it was either Xtoxm of CC being scum. The cop claim kind of confused me, I should have stuck to my original thoughts. My vote on Xtoxm was bad yea, I was truly actually voting CR as he seemed more likely, but wanted to leave it to GIEFF to decide. I didn't expect MR to hammer. I should have just committed and hammered.

[hambargarz]

I should have had the courage to hammer CR when it was L1 on both Xtoxm and CR. I was leaning towards Xtoxm, it's just so easy to doubt yourself when you're in the situation.