Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[CarnCarn]

all the masks of the Carnival of Venice passing in succession before your glass,--in a word, a human kaleidoscope.

I really like this line.
And

Vote: Machiavellian-Mafia

. He's Machiavelli. He's Mafia.

[CarnCarn]

Unvote: Machiavellian-Mafia
Vote: Ramus

I'm gonna call his early bluff.

Mod: What is the policy on unvoting?

Mod Edit: It is not necessary to unvote to vote another player, but it is appreciated.

[CarnCarn]

It would be nice if the people voting/FoSing him actually gave some reasons as to why self-voting in the *random* stage of the game suggests one is scum?

I don't think he's scum for self-voting. Remind me to give my reasons for voting later (i.e., after the random stage).

[CarnCarn]

It's a first time.

That's what she said.

[CarnCarn]

It would be nice if the people voting/FoSing him actually gave some reasons as to why self-voting in the *random* stage of the game suggests one is scum?

I don't think he's scum for self-voting. Remind me to give my reasons for voting later (i.e., after the random stage).

The whole point of RV is to create discussion, why don't you want to discuss right now?

I'm all for discussion, but I think my comments might have a counter-productive effect ATM. That's why I said I'll explain later. I want to see how things start unfolding.

[CarnCarn]

## Vote: ThAdmiral

because I voted him in another game also and I like to be consistent

There was just an extremely lengthy theory discussion in another game I am playing based on self-voting. It was agreed, as Ramus said, that it's subjective and there's nothing inherently scummy about self-voting. It would be nice if the people voting/FoSing him actually gave some reasons as to why self-voting in the *random* stage of the game suggests one is scum?

Why do you use the ## too?

Asking again, this was a serious question.

It could have something to do with this

[CarnCarn]

Now, keep in mind that this is opinion of mine, but I am going to keep my vote where I am for two reasons. 1) Because I feel that his question-dodging was scummy and 2) I feel that some pressure here might give us far more information than we could get from his random-vote alone.

I'm not feeling the pressure.

As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him

Pretty lame excuse.

[CarnCarn]

Unvote: Machiavellian-Mafia
Vote: Ramus

I'm gonna call his early bluff.

Says the guy who never said the reason behind voting for me.

Mizzy: Ramus might have thought those questions were rhetorical, as I did. When you ask someone why they are so stupid, the person usually doesn't tell you he was dropped on his head a lot as a kid. Usually. But Ramus has also not answered questions from Machiavellian-Mafia as well, so Ramus might be intentionally stopped answering certain questions.

I'm sorry sir, but I think you've mistaken for a different user. I never participated in a game called Machiavellian-Mafia.

Oy, my mistake here, I forget we had a user named Machiavellian-Mafia. Perhaps I'll answer his/her questions when I feel like it.

You're in no position to criticize me for not explaining my vote.
You can't say your vote on yourself was random. You already said you did it "on purpose." If you're not going to explain why you did it, then why should I?

[CarnCarn]

Unvote: Machiavellian-Mafia
Vote: Ramus

I'm gonna call his early bluff.

Says the guy who never said the reason behind voting for me.

Mizzy: Ramus might have thought those questions were rhetorical, as I did. When you ask someone why they are so stupid, the person usually doesn't tell you he was dropped on his head a lot as a kid. Usually. But Ramus has also not answered questions from Machiavellian-Mafia as well, so Ramus might be intentionally stopped answering certain questions.

I'm sorry sir, but I think you've mistaken for a different user. I never participated in a game called Machiavellian-Mafia.

Oy, my mistake here, I forget we had a user named Machiavellian-Mafia. Perhaps I'll answer his/her questions when I feel like it.

You're in no position to criticize me for not explaining my vote.
You can't say your vote on yourself was random. You already said you did it "on purpose." If you're not going to explain why you did it, then why should I?

But of course. However, I'm free to slap myself on my wrist all I want. However, if I ever choose to slap someone else on the wrist, I should owe them an explanation right? After all, I should tell them why I hit them, as for myself, I don't own myself any explanation as I already know.

Each slap counts the same
for the purpose of this game.
I've read your mind exactly
and our thoughts match perfectly.
I will also these thoughts explain
when there are scum to maim.

[CarnCarn]

This was two different experiments I tried to pull off. One being ending the random voting phase early, which was successful I guess. The second being Fong's gambit. I hoped to catch some scum off guard, didn't work though. However, I did find townie looking people.

Exactly. I was trying to get a wagon going on you (my vote was the second, after yours), to see how readily others would follow. My intent when I said "I'm going to call his bluff" was to throw some suspicion and see if anyone would quickly jump on that.
I'm kind of disappointed that you've decided to end this already, since there is still a player that hasn't really checked in yet (i.e., Puta Puta).
I personally find Clockwork's false excuse to not vote you as more suspicious than Batt's "Pressure good" comment, so

Unvote: Ramus
Vote: ClockworkRuse

Oh oh! Rhymes! Do another!

Maybe later.

[CarnCarn]

So, you think because I'm not going to focus on someone that more than two or three people are focusing on is scummy? The rhectoric of 'false' excuse is also unnecessary, it's not even an excuse.

Your reason for not voting ("there is adequate pressure") doesn't work well in light of Ramus' statement "I'm not feeling the pressure" (said before you voted). That leads me to think you are afraid to be seen taking an aggressive stance on someone this early, especially if that person ends up town. So you had to give some reason for not voting, even though he was acting quite suspiciously, and you figured you could get away with the "but I don't want to put someone at L-3 on page 3" excuse or something.

Would you rather I tunnel in on someone who already has two or three players firing questions away?

What's wrong with that?

[CarnCarn]

Of all the gambits that I know of, the one I HATE, no, LOATH the most is Fong's gambit. It's not catching anyone. It's just bad play. And it also gives a good excuse for scum who do something scummy early on.

Vote for me if you think I'm scummy. The one think I loathe is whiny players who don't do anything.

What was whiny about what I said?

For one, you call my play a bad one, yet you haven't made any real play yourself. Secondly, you call sum while you're at it. VOTE FOR ME IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALL ME SCUMMY.

There might be some people out there (ClockworkRuse for example) that might deserve my vote more than you. I'm still trying to determine that.

what about FoS and IGMEOY?

FoS's and IGMEOY's suck and I try to keep my use of them to a minimum.

IGMEOY: Caboose

[CarnCarn]

WI-FOM (noun):

Well, if scum doesn't gain anything by focusing on somebody else , but does gain a lot by focusing on the same guy, then focusing on somebody else will make it so that no one thinks you are scum.
I know that up until here it looks stupid, but once you give an excuse as to why you are doing the non scummy thing(as you did) then people will start thinking you are scum...

still, your point is noted.

[CarnCarn]

Of all the gambits that I know of, the one I HATE, no, LOATH the most is Fong's gambit. It's not catching anyone. It's just bad play. And it also gives a good excuse for scum who do something scummy early on.

Vote for me if you think I'm scummy. The one think I loathe is whiny players who don't do anything.

What was whiny about what I said?

For one, you call my play a bad one, yet you haven't made any real play yourself. Secondly, you call sum while you're at it. VOTE FOR ME IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALL ME SCUMMY.

There might be some people out there (ClockworkRuse for example) that might deserve my vote more than you. I'm still trying to determine that.

what about FoS and IGMEOY?

FoS's and IGMEOY's suck and I try to keep my use of them to a minimum.

IGMEOY: Caboose

Any particular reason?

How do you propose to keep track of multiple players whom you find suspicious? Personally, I use FoS and IGMEOY as a way of in-thread notetaking, especially useful for later in the game, but also as a way to get more serious attention of someone I think is acting scummy.
The IGMEOY on you was partly jest and partly a concern that you may be focusing your efforts only on one person at a time.

[CarnCarn]

Ortolan, the point is that the town was applying pressure to him, and his reactions are important. You defending him detracts from his reactions, in my opinion, as you give him a safeguard.

Are you telling me that it's okay to self-vote because it's a fashion now?

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

Self-voting is fundamentally a null-tell. I defended it as such. You had no basis for voting for Ramus for it, and you had no basis for then voting for me. Furthermore you rebuked ThAdmiral for defending me. Your first action had no merit and the two actions which stemmed from it also, consequently, had no merit. I see it as quite possible you are aiming for a devil's advocate-type playstyle (ironically much like Ramus also seems to be doing) but this doesn't excuse you from the onus of providing valid arguments for your votes and assertions.

Actually, he never voted Ramus, but he gave some (tenuous) reasons for not doing so, which is why he is the leading wagon ATM.
Basically, read the thread.

[CarnCarn]

@ battousai: I'd say something in response to that, but that would be defending...

^Copout.

I agree. ThAd, spill the beans; ClockworkRuse probably won't mind as long as you're defending

him

.

[CarnCarn]

I don't like the CR-hate...

I also see a contradiction in your second statement. Earlier you said "As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him", which suggests that Ramus is your primary interest. Then in the post above you flip flop and say that the Ramus-defenders are your primary interests and Ramus is secondary.

I don't see these implication. How did this comment of the wagon tell you that CR was more interested in Ramus than he was of ortolan, the player he

voted

for? Where is the contradiction?

This is what ClockworkRuse posted:

As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him,

but I would like a better explaination about why he self-voted rather than someone else explaining something about his last game.

Vote: ortolan

Why were you defending Ramus?

Emphasis added. Basically what he's saying is "I would prefer to vote Ramus, but there is enough pressure, so I'll vote someone else", which implies that Ramus was in fact a primary choice.

[CarnCarn]

Vote for me if you think I'm scummy. The one think I loathe is whiny players who don't do anything.

What was whiny about what I said?

For one, you call my play a bad one, yet you haven't made any real play yourself. Secondly, you call sum while you're at it. VOTE FOR ME IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALL ME SCUMMY.

There might be some people out there (ClockworkRuse for example) that might deserve my vote more than you. I'm still trying to determine that.

what about FoS and IGMEOY?

FoS's and IGMEOY's suck and I try to keep my use of them to a minimum.

IGMEOY: Caboose

Any particular reason?

How do you propose to keep track of multiple players whom you find suspicious? Personally, I use FoS and IGMEOY as a way of in-thread notetaking, especially useful for later in the game, but also as a way to get more serious attention of someone I think is acting scummy.
The IGMEOY on you was partly jest and partly a concern that you may be focusing your efforts only on one person at a time.

[CarnCarn]

I also don't like that ort does, indeed, seem to have been waiting around for others to make his cases for him.

What exactly is this based off of? You are implying that he is being opportunistic.
If this is true, I don't see any reason why he would defend Ramus self-voting (unless maybe if they are scum together, and even then that is not a given) instead of just piling on to that wagon.

[CarnCarn]

Caboose is the worst offender since not only are his contributions just Mafia theory and minutiae, he has been much more active in other places than in this game. In his last 40 posts he has 1 post in this game, in his last 90 posts he has 2 posts in this game, etc. I consider lack of motivation to contribute to be very scummy.

Unvote ClockworkRuse, Vote: Caboose

Unvote: ClockworkRuse
Vote: Caboose

[CarnCarn]

Not liking the tag-team attack on ort. Seems to be a big reach on CR's part especially.

In post 79 CR says:

So I'm trying to not to appear aggressive... As I'm going after someone else,

which is most likely going to grow a little more intense on my part soon.

And I wouldn't mind putting someone at L-3 on page three. I just think it would be better to open the town to more than just one scummy play in a day. Tunneling kills townies, I can show you more that enough references for that.

Here he clearly states his intentions to "up the ferocity in his attack on me". Does anyone honestly think I did something scummy enough in the first 3 pages to warrant that sort of attention? It seems to me even if my vote for him did amount to OMGUS it seems fairly justified when someone is being as single-minded as he (I will not be pleased if you deliberately misinterpret this point again, CR). Immediately after this he tells us "tunneling kills townies". Priceless.

I bolded for emphasis. That part struck me as odd when I first read it, as well. I didn't know who he was referring to at the time, but it makes much more sense now. What

are

you planning CR, and why would you announce it like this?

Also, more Caboose wagoning please.

[CarnCarn]

Unvote

Caboose, I see you're still keeping your early vote on Batt. Did you mean to do this?

[CarnCarn]

I will be V/LA 12/2-12/4 (returning 12/5)

Right now, no one stands out at an obvious suspect. I feel that a CR lynch is the best, though. If he flips scum, then I can understand why his wagon stalled out earlier. If he is town, then we can investigate his wagoners tomorrow. It puts his earlier comments in some context.

I also find Axel mildly suspicious for his "townie" list, especially this early in the game.

Vote: ClockworkRuse
FoS: Axelrod

[CarnCarn]

^^That just sounds like Caboose, to me.^^

[CarnCarn]

Hmm, no. The only game I played with him was as scum, so nevermind.

[CarnCarn]

I'm also still curious why Axel is so set on me claiming, it seems like minor fishing to me. L-3 is no position to claim.

I can understand Axel's position. It only takes 4 to lynch at deadline, and the earlier we have even

some

info, the more flexible the lynch can be, IMO.

[CarnCarn]

- setting up a binary system that implies if you are on the lynch and it he is scum you are town, and if you are on the lynch and he is town you are scum (also setting up chain lynches to a certain degree)
- doesn't seem to take responsibility for own vote: when he says "we can investigate his wagoners tomorrow" it doesn't sound like he is including himself.

No, I was one of his wagoners earlier in the day, and it looks like I will be at the end of the day, too. I'm not "excusing" myself at all. If I am setting up chain lynches, then I'm setting up my own lynch, too.

Could someone please summarize why CR is obvscum?

I don't think anyone is obvscum, here. I am voting CR because he seems most scummy (dodging the Ramus wagon with a clearly invalid excuse, annoucing that he was getting ready to go after attacking someone right when the attention starting mounting on him, etc.)

[CarnCarn]

townlist:
mizzy
carncarn
mach-maf
axelrod

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like kinds of lists. The players often end up dead the next day.

FoS: roflcopter

[CarnCarn]

The problem with that is that it makes deciding NKs for the scum a lot easier if they know who the town thinks is town and who the town is unsure of.

[CarnCarn]

Vote: CarnCarn

For FoSing rofl for a BS reason.

This from someone who thinks FoS's are pointless anyway.

And let me get this straight...you don't want ROFL helping the scum inadvertently by telling everyone who he thinks is what, and yet you FoSed him? An FoS tells us you might suspect someone is scum. However, if he is scum, and he posted a list of those he thinks is innocent, there's no real harm done because the scum will find out anyway. So to me, you basically scolded someone as if they were a bad townie and then accused them of being scum. Which is it?

I have no idea what he is and I never said he was town. Why are you pretending like I did? At best it's scum WIFOM and my point was that it could just make protown-killing scum's job easier.
MM made a good point about scum NKs not necessarily being that straightforward, though.

[CarnCarn]

Tell me why scumhunting even if pressure is building on me is scummy, CarnCarn.

Expecting an answer.

Your original comments said you had someone in mind, but didn't say who it was; just someone, maybe anyone. It made it sound like your intentions were to deflect attention more than anything.

Just because they're pointless, it doesn't mean that they don't have to have a good reason behind them.

1. That's counterintuitive. Something pointless doesn't need to have a point to it, yes?
2. There was a reason for it and I've explained twice now why it could hurt the town.
3. Voting for someone because they FoS'd is really weaksauce.

[CarnCarn]

I didn't really see a point in CarnCarn's FOS of rofl. His list could only be construed as anti-town at most, since the effect it would have on scum's kill choice is null if rofl was scum anyway. There is no ulterior motive for rofl as scum to have posted a list.

Yeah, it's not like there is a Mafia Traitor or anything in this setup...

Chances of scum being on my wagon... quite high.

[CarnCarn]

Caboose, can you repeat your (non-existant) case against me?

[CarnCarn]

Sorry for double post, just noticed this:

Chances of scum being on my wagon... quite high.

So who is more likely to be scum to you? Is it CR, who is your current vote, or is it one or both of {Caboose, Destrutor}, who are on your current wagon? If it's the former, does it mean you consider CR's chance to be scum to be very high (i.e. higher than "quite high")? If it's the latter, why did you not switch your vote?

Good questions and points here. At first, I thought Caboose's vote on me for FoSing might have been to just get a reaction, but he is serious about keeping his vote on me. Destructor's "me too" vote is also scummy, especially since he seems to be defending CR. Another person trying to derail a scumbuddy's wagon, perhaps. The only way destructor and Caboose would be scum (IMO) is if they were trying to protect CR-scum. Otherwise, they could be VERY opportunistic about destroying town-CR.
So, to answer your question, I find both Caboose and destructor to be scummy, but I also think that that is dependent upon CR being scum. So, I'm keeping my CR vote, as I think his lynch will give the most information about peoples' attacks and defenses.

[CarnCarn]

You are telling me that CarnCarn's response to my question, see 292, is not in some way of being suspicious because I didn't join the wagon?

I don't see any deeper meaning there. Are you telling me that these players haven't been suspicious of me because I didn't jump onto that wagon? Because it certainly seems like that to me.

I will only answer for myself. My comment was more than just that you are scum for not joining the Ramus wagon, but that you are scum because you didn't join it

for an invalid reason

.

[CarnCarn]

You are telling me that CarnCarn's response to my question, see 292, is not in some way of being suspicious because I didn't join the wagon?

I don't see any deeper meaning there. Are you telling me that these players haven't been suspicious of me because I didn't jump onto that wagon? Because it certainly seems like that to me.

I will only answer for myself. My comment was more than just that you are scum for not joining the Ramus wagon, but that you are scum because you didn't join it

for an invalid reason

.

The reason wasn't invaild. You just didn't like it.

With MM, you, and... I believe it was Mizzy, on his wagon, I felt like the amount of pressure being applied was going to suffice against him. You had been asking him good questions and I felt like it would benefit the town if we kept applying pressure all around.

And you are willing to lynch me just to get information? So when I turn up town, what exactly are you going to learn? We've already heard your assumptions about if I flip scum if I get lynched, but what of the other way around?

In other words; How does an information lynch help the town?

It was clearly invalid because Ramus already said he wasn't feeling any pressure to answer the questions put forth to him. Your reason for not voting was because there was adequate pressure, when it was obviously not the case. Why do you keep avoiding this?

And more "strawman" questions towards the end of your post. I've already answered them, but will reiterate here:
I am

not

supporting your lynch just to get information. I've explained that I think you are scum and said why. In addition, the actions taken by Caboose and destructor, for example, will have a better context if we know your alignment.
And for the case where you are town, I already said what I think must happen. Your wagoners, including me, will be under a lot of scrutiny. The chances of your lynch taking place with only townies voting is unlikely (unless it is a 4 vote deadline lynch, which I prefer not to happen; I will say right now that I highly prefer a majority lynch

before

deadline).

[CarnCarn]

roflcopter is his usual useless self.

Axelrod, is quite logical and pro-town.

that seems like an odd stance to take, considering axel and i have expressed very similar opinions and concerns thus far

I also find that putting both you and Caboose in the pro-scum group is strange to say the least, especially without any explanation.

[CarnCarn]

Hi, letting you all know I'm going to have limited access until Dec 14.

I will get another post in before the weekend is over. I feel like I'm kind of losing touch in this game, so if anyone has anything specific they'd like me to comment on or any questions, they're welcome too.

How do you feel your current vote on CarnCarn? None of the reasons you listed were particularly strong IMO: his FOS on rofl, his IGMEOY on Caboose, and his jump away from CR.

It felt good at the time. I noted that I'm on LA until Sunday, but I'd like to find some time to have a look over everything before deadline (which I assume will be placed soon).

I think CC's FOS and IGMEOY looked like noise/distractions. Neither were appropriate or useful. The IGMEOY was mostly malignant, but looked worse in retrospect when he tried to attach some pro-town spin to the FOS. His reasons for the FOS didn't add up - rofl would only be helping scum if he was town. Even if it was just a theory disagreement, why

suspect

someone over it? That doesn't make sense. Scum are trying to find excuses to suspect people, townies don't need to.

Why didn't you vote me when I FoS'd Axel for the same thing, before I FoS'd roflcopter?

[CarnCarn]

He also got fairly defensive when votes started to go on to him, which I think is a very slight scum tell.

Wait, what? Didn't realize calling BS was a scum-tell.

As an added bonus he is also the most likely to be lynched out of that bunch with two votes already.

That's not really a reason unless you think there is something wrong with the CR wagon, since he's even more likely to be lynched given the vote count.

Of the people on the clockwork wagon he is my least favorite mainly because he has harped on about the same points from the very start, points which I believe clockwork has responded to.

They are points that are irreconcilable given what he and Ramus said, though.

Caboose, can you repeat your (non-existent) case against me?

Still waiting on this.

[CarnCarn]

I wouldn't mind lynching both me and CR today, but unfortunately that's not possible.

I would self-hammer to lynch at deadline if it was for an actual majority, but I think self-hammering here is pretty pointless for me, even in the face of no lynch.

I also wouldn't mind a Caboose lynch.

[CarnCarn]

You also say that no lynching would be unforgivable, but won't vote CC to stop one. Which is more important - avoiding a No Lynch or keeping CC alive?

My take is that, if he's scum, he knows a hammer on me will get him in hot water since the case on me is paper thin at best. Scum are of course OK with a no lynch, even if it's technically possible to hammer a townie.
If he's town, he's got a good read on me, and honestly, a 4-vote lynch here doesn't really give too much information. Decent chance that wagoners could be all town. Although, in this case, I doubt everyone on my wagon now is town.

Also, I wonder when CR will get around to voting me. He's definately taking his time, that's for sure.

[CarnCarn]

Would also switch to Caboose wagon for deadline; not a big fan of lynching Nat on one/two posts that I think are really just Nat being Nat (and I actually agree that something seems "artificial"/strange about this game, but I can't put my finger on it).

[CarnCarn]

I didn't want to, you've played pretty pro-town all game. I get the whole 'save myself from a lynch', but you would get more information out of my lynch than yours. So why would I vote someone I've considered more pro-town than non?

Unvote, Vote: Caboose

Let's try to get a majority lynch if possible.

Caboose's complete disappearance is unsettling and it's interesting that CR choose not to vote me given the chance. Of course, it's possible that CR is still scum and Caboose is town, who just looks really scummy.

[CarnCarn]

Unvote

Wow, this is really confusing. My initial thoughts that Caboose/destructor were deliberately trying to detract from the CR wagon seem weak given Urza's desire for a CR lynch now.
Trying to decide where to vote now - I will probably vote one of Urza/CR before deadline. Have to reread urza and CR before making a decision.

[CarnCarn]

We do have a deadline (12/14)

You make an interesting point about rofl that I was going to mention, too. As for the others, I don't see Nat as scum based on his two posts (one of which I said I agreed with).
Mizzy struck me as odd for continuing to go after Ramus for being vague/noncompliant even after Ramus revealed his "gambit"; also, reluctance to vote since her intial vote is a bit scummy, but apparently that's just how she plays, so it's likely to just be a null-tell. So, yeah, I find Mizzy slightly scummy but not really vote-worthy.

Caboose didn't post much but what he did post and then his opportune disappearance around deadline without answering my question to explain his case on me was pretty scummy.

I've had you and CR on my scummiest list for a while now, so I don't think it's a surprise that I've mentioned I would probably vote either you or him before deadline and I don't see it as locking into one or the other just yet. Willing to change it of course.

Want moar Nat posting, for example, and want rofl to answer why (specific examples) his opinion of you changed so quickly.

[CarnCarn]

urza, what are your thoughts on a Nat lynch?

[CarnCarn]

Reading through Urza and I've got some questions/comments:

On my shit list are Uriel, but this is one I'm having a little difficulty with in my mind, because the things I am picking up on are either indicative of scum who knows what they are doing, or town who has no clue. He attacks things that appear out of the ordinary, without giving justification for whether or not they are SCUMMY. Remember, scummy has a very definite meaning. It is an action that a scum player is more likely to do than a town player. Therefore to see uriel jumping on those things, to me, is indicative of one or two things.

I am currently in an ongoing Newbie where uriel also flaked. Could be scum, but also very n00b player in general.

Self voting is stupid as hell, but it provides no insight at all into the alignment of a player. None whatsoever. Zip. Nada. Zilch. There is no real motivation for scum to do it that is separate from town motivation to do it, and therefore it is the definition of a NULL TELL.

Scum could try the same gambit to trap townsfolk into doing something that, on the surface, looks scummy.

Now, you might be saying to yourself "Well, a lot of people attacked the self voter...I was one of them." and this is true, but what sets clockworks actions apart is how he doesn't directly attack either player for any one thing. He attacks Orto for what clockwork did, and by proxy attacks the self voter. He clearly thinks what the self voter has done is "scummy" but doesn't vote him. This is not only dumb because in order for orto to be scum in the way clockwork is presenting the game, the self voter has to be, and since Ortos alignment is then dependant on the self voters, and not the other way around, he should be voting the self voter, but scummy because it allows him to add more pressure to the self voter wagon without actually implicating himself by it, and also allows him to poison ortos well by accusing him of things that aren't really scummy that put him on the defensive and take him off the offensive.

Now this is seriously flawed. You conveniently choose to forget that scum try very hard to buddy with townies as a way to distance from their actual teammates. This is why defending someone can be scummy regardless of the alignment of the person being defended.

Secondly, a pretty big thing I look for is when players are not honestly interested in determining alignment, but are instead just looking to win the argument. Clockworks post 152 is a perfect example of this. The mischaracterization of Ortos vote "HE ADMITS IT WAS OMGUS" is pretty ridiculous, and is not something a player interested in determining orto's alignment would say. Orto quite clearly said that he was being a tad biased, and then went on to explain the nature of the vote. Clockwork IGNORES the real justification, something that if discussed might lead to information about orto's alignment, and goes straight for the jugular with a can't miss, look what stupid things he's doing he's an idiot argument. This is telling because I think there's a pretty clear divide between what a town player would do in this situation, and what a scum player would do in this situation. Psychologically, this is a pretty damn strong tell in my book.

This is a good point. As I think I said already, I felt CR was reaching with some of the accusations against ort. However, it's not necessarily a scumtell because I know people will sometimes ask reachish questions to get reactions. Still, in this case, I see it as a negative against CR.

---

Urza, why do you keep saying that I presented a false dichotomy after you realized we have a deadline? I've explained already why I think the best lynch is you or CR today, yet you keep dismissing this as a false dichotomy.

(I mean, I don't think he strategically planned ANYTHING this game, he doesn't seem like a good schemer, of course I have the insight of knowing his role which makes me KNOW he's not a very strategic person, but I digress)

Something just rubs me the wrong way here. Oh, maybe the suggestion that your role does clearly require strategy? But then, you say Caboose wasn't strategic at all. How exactly does knowing Caboose's role tell you that he wasn't strategic? His play is in line with careless scum, or town trying to act very hard like scum, but you say that's not strategic. So, are you saying he is careless scum?

Also, what do you think policy lynches for poor play are for? People lynch lurkers because lurking annoys them.

No, people lynch lurkers because lurking helps scum.

[CarnCarn]

OK, about 4.5 hrs to deadline. I'm going to:

Vote: ClockworkRuse

Because I think he is pretty scummy and Nat hasn't done anything really scummy IMO. I actually would have voted Urza but he only has 2 votes now. If anyone adds a third vote to Urza, I would strongly consider switching to him.

[CarnCarn]

Oh, also:

Unvote: Urzassedatives

, while you are getting the pass today, it doesn't mean you have a clean slate with Caboose wiped off when I evaluate you in later days.

I'm now essentially at step 2 of my previously mentioned deadline plan, so

Vote: Natirasha

M-M can you explain what made you less suspicious of Urza?

Triple posting rocks!

[CarnCarn]

@CarnCarn: I think you misread the deadline by 24 hours. It should around this time tomorrow.

I unvoted Urza mainly because he just replaced in. My policy on replacements is that unless there is overwhelming evidence against the predecessor such as a cop guilty, replacements should be allowed to participate further and prove themselves.

Oh, that's true. My vote still stands at the moment, as does my willingness to switch to an urza vote, and I'd like to see urza respond to my questions/comments.
That policy may be generally logical, but it doesn't change the scumminess of the person just because they were replaced. I can see it both ways, though.

[CarnCarn]

I'm here, waiting for urza's answers. Especially about how knowing Caboose's role lets him know Caboose wasn't being strategic. I think I still prefer him to be the lynch but doesn't look like it will happen.

[CarnCarn]

there's still about 4 hours to deadline, but as it stands, CR would be lynched.

[CarnCarn]

Unvote

Not commenting on why at this point.

Essentially a hammering unvote, but with zero reasons and he never suspected Nat D1.

Vote: Ortolan

Unvote
Vote: Natirasha

Because I don't know what else to do with my vote.

CR or Batt can make the difference.

Not buying the excuse.

FoS: destructor

[CarnCarn]

Not understanding the votes on me. Urza is understandably going through a rough time, but he gave no reasoning for his vote and destructor is voting me for opportunistic FoSing of roflcopter D1,

after I gave a FoS for the same reason to Axelrod

. Also sees my vote for Caboose as scummy, even after I said Caboose was the scummiest, and at the end of the day I would have preferred a Caboose/Urza lynch to a CR one. Given ort's claim and explanation for his unvote, I think Urza is still the most suspicious to me.

Unvote: ortolan
Vote: Urzassedatives

Ort's claim makes him much more town at the moment, in my opinion, but still:

Ort, what about your flavor on CR makes/made you think he is town?

CC: Why FoS destructor and vote Ort and not the other way around?

Maybe a moot question at this point, but I voted ort for the reason I gave: hammering by unvote, for a player he never mentioned as finding suspicious. Destructor's vote for Nat was also most unexplained, but I can understand the reasoning behind putting 2 players at 5. So, while I found the Nat vote by itself a bit scummy, I originally thought the hammering unvote was worse.

[CarnCarn]

Urza, I didn't say you had no reason, but that you didn't give one. I simply said that I couldn't understand the votes on me, especially yours since you didn't give a reason.
Also, that is not the only reason why I'm voting you. Caboose's voting and bouts of lurkerdom were scummy, plus I would also appreciate your response to my comments about your posts from D1, especially the part about Caboose's role and strategic play:

Reading through Urza and I've got some questions/comments:

On my shit list are Uriel, but this is one I'm having a little difficulty with in my mind, because the things I am picking up on are either indicative of scum who knows what they are doing, or town who has no clue. He attacks things that appear out of the ordinary, without giving justification for whether or not they are SCUMMY. Remember, scummy has a very definite meaning. It is an action that a scum player is more likely to do than a town player. Therefore to see uriel jumping on those things, to me, is indicative of one or two things.

I am currently in an ongoing Newbie where uriel also flaked. Could be scum, but also very n00b player in general.

Self voting is stupid as hell, but it provides no insight at all into the alignment of a player. None whatsoever. Zip. Nada. Zilch. There is no real motivation for scum to do it that is separate from town motivation to do it, and therefore it is the definition of a NULL TELL.

Scum could try the same gambit to trap townsfolk into doing something that, on the surface, looks scummy.

Now, you might be saying to yourself "Well, a lot of people attacked the self voter...I was one of them." and this is true, but what sets clockworks actions apart is how he doesn't directly attack either player for any one thing. He attacks Orto for what clockwork did, and by proxy attacks the self voter. He clearly thinks what the self voter has done is "scummy" but doesn't vote him. This is not only dumb because in order for orto to be scum in the way clockwork is presenting the game, the self voter has to be, and since Ortos alignment is then dependant on the self voters, and not the other way around, he should be voting the self voter, but scummy because it allows him to add more pressure to the self voter wagon without actually implicating himself by it, and also allows him to poison ortos well by accusing him of things that aren't really scummy that put him on the defensive and take him off the offensive.

Now this is seriously flawed. You conveniently choose to forget that scum try very hard to buddy with townies as a way to distance from their actual teammates. This is why defending someone can be scummy regardless of the alignment of the person being defended.

Secondly, a pretty big thing I look for is when players are not honestly interested in determining alignment, but are instead just looking to win the argument. Clockworks post 152 is a perfect example of this. The mischaracterization of Ortos vote "HE ADMITS IT WAS OMGUS" is pretty ridiculous, and is not something a player interested in determining orto's alignment would say. Orto quite clearly said that he was being a tad biased, and then went on to explain the nature of the vote. Clockwork IGNORES the real justification, something that if discussed might lead to information about orto's alignment, and goes straight for the jugular with a can't miss, look what stupid things he's doing he's an idiot argument. This is telling because I think there's a pretty clear divide between what a town player would do in this situation, and what a scum player would do in this situation. Psychologically, this is a pretty damn strong tell in my book.

This is a good point. As I think I said already, I felt CR was reaching with some of the accusations against ort. However, it's not necessarily a scumtell because I know people will sometimes ask reachish questions to get reactions. Still, in this case, I see it as a negative against CR.

---

Urza, why do you keep saying that I presented a false dichotomy after you realized we have a deadline? I've explained already why I think the best lynch is you or CR today, yet you keep dismissing this as a false dichotomy.

(I mean, I don't think he strategically planned ANYTHING this game, he doesn't seem like a good schemer, of course I have the insight of knowing his role which makes me KNOW he's not a very strategic person, but I digress)

Something just rubs me the wrong way here. Oh, maybe the suggestion that your role does clearly require strategy? But then, you say Caboose wasn't strategic at all. How exactly does knowing Caboose's role tell you that he wasn't strategic? His play is in line with careless scum, or town trying to act very hard like scum, but you say that's not strategic. So, are you saying he is careless scum?

Also, what do you think policy lynches for poor play are for? People lynch lurkers because lurking annoys them.

No, people lynch lurkers because lurking helps scum.

---

Also, CR is still on my scummy-list. Not sure why some folks are treating him as more town or as nearly confirmed town just because of ambiguous flavoring in ort's role message (or so he claims). Heck, I'm not sure why ort unvoted based on that.

[CarnCarn]

@ destructor: question - do you think it would be a good idea to lynch both people on cr's wagon, one after the other?

Not solely for them being on the wagon. Caboose was kind of useless but Urza seemed townish. It would have been nice to know why he voted CC now, but we won't know that for a while at least. There are other players who were on it too that I wasn't comfortable with, like Battousai, but I felt his play later in Day 1 was very pro-town. I think the people to look at are those with the most spurious reasons for having joined CR's wagon.

Can you explain what makes you think "Urza seemed townish"? Would you lynch Urza after you lynch me and I flip town, or a vice versa situation (i.e., do you think there was definately scum on the CR wagon?)?

[CarnCarn]

My vote on you was simply to make you react to me. The fact that you're antsy about it strikes me as odd though. In my experience town players tend to shrug off unexplained and unfollowed up votes on them. I know if someone just posts "vote: shea" I'm more likely to ignore it than anything else. Scum players tend to get nervous though. They wonder if the player is a cop with a guilty on them or something. In fact, that's exactly how your reaction reads to me, as a player who is hoping that a cop doesn't have a guilty on them. The purpose of the vote was to see how you reacted, and I really don't like what I see, so I'm keeping it.

I don't see why anyone would ignore a vote against them, town or scum. Not getting lynched is usually the best way to fulfill your wincon regardless of alignment, and every vote counts.
If you are breadcrumbing that you're a cop and actually have a guilty on me, then your sanity is in question. It's also a possible scum tactic that could be used to lynch someone they think is a real cop/doc, etc. (testing the cop).
Also, from what I've seen, a cop with a guilty doesn't just cast out an unexplained vote on his investigation target, so, even if I were scum, that thought wouldn't have crossed my mind.

[CarnCarn]

1) You might be right that a townie might not ignore the vote completely, but generally you would expect to hear a "Why are you voting for me?" rather than a "Urza voted for me without giving reasoning and I found his predecessor scummy so vote: urza" The former is a curious townie reaction, the latter is antsy scum.

The question is implied with my vote, and you haven't fully explained it. You said you were looking for a reaction. But why did you pick me? And I voted you because I found Caboose scummy; your unexplained vote was puzzling, but not scummy. Here is my post where I voted you:

Not understanding the votes on me. Urza is understandably going through a rough time, but he gave no reasoning for his vote and destructor is voting me for opportunistic FoSing of roflcopter D1, after I gave a FoS for the same reason to Axelrod. Also sees my vote for Caboose as scummy, even after I said Caboose was the scummiest, and at the end of the day I would have preferred a Caboose/Urza lynch to a CR one. Given ort's claim and explanation for his unvote, I think Urza is still the most suspicious to me.

I start off saying I don't understand the basis for the two votes against me, and end by saying why I don't find ortolan, who I was voting at the time, was no longer scummy to me, and that I still find you/Caboose most suspicious. Your vote today wasn't the reason for the vote.

2) I am making no sort of role claim. My statement in no way implicated that I was. Your further defense against a possible cop guilty when I never claimed to have a guilty on you is further evidence of scum antsyness.

You suggested that I am afraid that someone has a guilty on me (you, for your vote). That's not a role claim, but it's possible breadcrumbing and only I addressed your own hypothetical situation, so I'm not sure why you think that is evidence of "scum antsyness."

3) Huh? Explain the comment about "it could be a possible scum tactic." I don't really understand what you're saying.

Not the breadcrumbing, I meant scum actually fake-claiming guilty on someone they strongly believe is a cop/doc. Note: I don't think you are an actual cop, or that you were really breadcrumbing, as suggested by what I said in my last paragraph.

4) Actually, that is a pretty generally accepted way to breadcrumb a cop investigation early in the game, when it's not worth claiming yet. That way if the cop turns up dead, the town can look back and say "hey look, he voted X with no explanation and didn;t move his vote...In fact, it's really the quintessential way to bread crumb a guilty in the early game... All that aside, my argument isn't even contingent on whether or not cops WOULD breadcrumb in that way. My point is that a town reaction to an unexplained vote is dismissal or curiosity. A scum reaction is fear and attack. You didn;t do the first.

Maybe, but I've seen more non-cops throw out unexplained votes than cops to make me automatically think it's a "generally accepted" way for cop to breadcrumb.

5) The attack aside, what do you think about the legitimacy of my vote? Do you still think that it's suspicious that I placed it? If so, why? If not, then why haven't you unvoted me?

If you were fishing for a reaction, you got one. Don't know why you picked me, though, and I await the explanation. For your second question: I NEVER thought it was suspicious that you placed it. For the third point, I haven't unvoted yet because I think Caboose has been most scummy for a while now. That said, I want to go back and take another look at his play and yours again, and try to figure out why so many people are taking ort's claim to means CR is town, or destructor's logic that the Nat lynch suggests CR is more town now. Basically, what I'm saying is my vote wasn't meant to be OMGUS for your vote on me today, and that I now need to refresh my thinking on this game in light of your recent posts, and pending your response to this one.

[CarnCarn]

Also, CR is still on my scummy-list. Not sure why some folks are treating him as more town or as nearly confirmed town just because of ambiguous flavoring in ort's role message (or so he claims). Heck, I'm not sure why ort unvoted based on that.

Why wouldn't CR-scum have voted for Nat?

Why wouldn't CR-town vote for Nat? CR-scum could have gotten a traitor vibe or something from Nat - who knows? Sure, I see his not voting Nat as a protown point in his favor, but my question/comment was directed at the people who pointed to ort's claim as evidence for CR being more protown.

@ destructor: question - do you think it would be a good idea to lynch both people on cr's wagon, one after the other?

Not solely for them being on the wagon. Caboose was kind of useless but Urza seemed townish. It would have been nice to know why he voted CC now, but we won't know that for a while at least. There are other players who were on it too that I wasn't comfortable with, like Battousai, but I felt his play later in Day 1 was very pro-town. I think the people to look at are those with the most spurious reasons for having joined CR's wagon.

Can you explain what makes you think "Urza seemed townish"? Would you lynch Urza after you lynch me and I flip town, or a vice versa situation (i.e., do you think there was definately scum on the CR wagon?)?

Urza seemd townish mostly because he was contributing and active. Or maybe his activity made me think he was less likely to be scum, or something.

I do think at least one scum was on CR's wagon. I think you are scum.

That's not quite what I asked. What I asked was what if I'm not? I take it now that your next lynch suspect would definitely be Urza, even though you have a townish read on him. This is noted for future reference.

MM, you said you didn't find the reasons I gave for voting CC yesterday very strong. Do you still feel the same way? Do you the conclusions I came to regarding the end of Day 1 are reasonable?

Yes because I still see the context/circumstances of CC's actions to be reasonable.

But no one, importantly including CC himself, has yet provided an explanation for why he would FOS a player for helping scum choose a nightkill. How is that reasonable, whatever the context or circumstances?

I gave reasons for why I thought it was anti-town play. Then, the general opinion became that it was mostly a theory clash, which I'm OK with, too. What are you missing?

If you are breadcrumbing that you're a cop and actually have a guilty on me, then your sanity is in question.

Whoa what? What did you expect Urza to say to that?

I expected him to say he was a cop with a guilty on me, because that was what I thought he was suggesting...

Post 426:

Don't like this post at all. By saying me or CR could make the difference strikes me as if he's trying to shift the blame for a mislynch onto us (mostly me)because we weren't voting at the time and we COULD have voted to save Nat. His post was also at the end of the day, which I think he could have thought the final vote count would be soon and I wouldn't have gotten on. From this Destructor and CR could be a scum team, or Destructor just prefered a Nat lynch due to their being less information gotten from it.

-5

I haven't blamed anyone for anything. Levelling the vote count meant anything ANYONE did would be more telling. The only people who really had to worry about that were scum.

FWIW, I agree with/support the reasoning behind this. That's why I said the play wasn't that scummy.

[CarnCarn]

I had to look back to see who the people who said ort's claim was evidence that CR was town and couldn't find anyone. Who do you think used ort's claim to try and clear CR?

Yeah, you're right, reading back, I think it was just ort himself, and that was in addition to other things I guess.

I know what you asked. I didn't say that Urza would be my next lynch target. I said I think you're scum. It sounds like you're trying to accuse me of setting lynches up or something.

Yes, I was. When you think there must be scum on the CR wagon, I assume you would follow through on that if one person died and was confirmed town.

I don't believe you ever provided a reason for the FOS. I know what other people said and I asked, "Why FOS over a theory dispute?" The fact is that you were trying to paint rofl as suspicious for something that was only anti-town if he was town anyway. I don't see how that makes sense as town.

Here you go:

I will be V/LA 12/2-12/4 (returning 12/5)

Right now, no one stands out at an obvious suspect. I feel that a CR lynch is the best, though. If he flips scum, then I can understand why his wagon stalled out earlier. If he is town, then we can investigate his wagoners tomorrow. It puts his earlier comments in some context.

I also find Axel mildly suspicious for his "townie" list, especially this early in the game.

Vote: ClockworkRuse
FoS: Axelrod

townlist:
mizzy
carncarn
mach-maf
axelrod

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like kinds of lists. The players often end up dead the next day.

FoS: roflcopter

The problem with that is that it makes deciding NKs for the scum a lot easier if they know who the town thinks is town and who the town is unsure of.

But probably the most explanatory of all:

I didn't really see a point in CarnCarn's FOS of rofl. His list could only be construed as anti-town at most, since the effect it would have on scum's kill choice is null if rofl was scum anyway. There is no ulterior motive for rofl as scum to have posted a list.

Yeah, it's not like there is a Mafia Traitor or anything in this setup...

Chances of scum being on my wagon... quite high.

You never considered the Traitor in this setup and how they might communicate with mafia in thread (doing something that helps them figure out who is looking the most town, for example). And you never responded to this post, either, and instead choose to continue your rampage of "CC is scum for FoSing someone doing something he thought was anti-town!"

What would be the benefit in outing a Cop? I really find the assumption that he had a guilty result on you scummy, with or without the overt role fishing.

I wasn't asking him to claim (note that I didn't believe for a second that he was a cop anyway - he brought up the specific scenario and I just responded to it). I was just stating that if in fact he is a cop with a guilty on me, he should think about it some more, and also explained why my perceived reaction to his vote was not scummy.

Now, your original reason for voting me:

I didn't really see a point in CarnCarn's FOS of rofl. His list could only be construed as anti-town at most, since the effect it would have on scum's kill choice is null if rofl was scum anyway. There is no ulterior motive for rofl as scum to have posted a list. If the list helps scum, rofl must be town and so an FOS makes no sense. There was also that IGMEOY at Caboose which seemed useless. I also just noticed that he seemed to jump ship from CR to Caboose after MM posted a case.

Caboose seems useless, but CC is looking like opportunistic scum.

Vote: CarnCarn

Please explain how

FoSing

two players for what I believed was the exact same anti-town behavior looks like "opportunistic scum."

[CarnCarn]

^^^Urzassedatives=thestatusquo

[CarnCarn]

Saying "LoL if you were town you would have done this because of this, and if you're scum you would of done it because of this lol." Is completely ::NotHelpful::

In my experience town players tend to shrug off unexplained and unfollowed up votes on them. I know if someone just posts "vote: shea" I'm more likely to ignore it than anything else. Scum players tend to get nervous though. They wonder if the player is a cop with a guilty on them or something.

Sort of that like, but without the "lol"s. I don't think it's completely not helpful, though; in fact, I thought it brought up useful points and gave us an idea of where we're both coming from.
Generally, your line of questioning and subsequent posts strike me as pretty protown, so I'm going to

Unvote: Urzassedatives

.

As for where I should put my vote next, I think destructor is most suspicious to me for pushing a case which is not at all a scum-tell or indicative of scumminess. Also, insisting "there must be scum on the CR wagon and it has less surviving members so lets lynch 'em" is pretty much derived from tunnel-vision on me, IMO, and reeks of setting up lynches on players (me, Urza) who are probably both town. So,

Vote: destructor

[CarnCarn]

But, before I go too much farther with this whole line of inquiry, maybe I ought to ask a general question: does Nat. actually have a well known reputation for being some kind of super flake/terrible player on Mafiascum? If he does, then this line is going to have less value than I was hoping it would. Because it's going to make the argument "oh, that's just Nat. being Nat..." at least a little more plausible.

Nat has a reputation for anti-town/scummy play as town. From what I gather, a scum-tell for him is actually being helpful in any way to town

I know I had this view of Nat and that was essentially my main reason for not voting him. If I were to vote him, I would have been advocating a policy lynch, which is better than nothing, but I felt the CR and Urza cases were more promising. A more interesting search would be to find players who voted Nat for what are generally null-tells for him, even though they are aware of his meta (I don't know who this would apply to - needs a bit of independent research).

[CarnCarn]

... is a huge speculative reach. If you are suggesting that this is the reason you really FOS'd Axelrod and rofl then why did you say "The problem with that is that it makes deciding NKs for the scum a lot easier if they know who the town thinks is town and who the town is unsure of." This isn't adding up. Why would the Traitor have a better idea of who the town thinks is scummy than the rest of the Mafia? Your comments following your FOS' looked to me like comments about your feelings on town-lists generally and not specifically in relation to this game itself. I really think you're just backtracking here.

That is my feeling about town lists in general, but, if you think about it, it's a way for the Traitor to communicate with mafia ("hey guys, these are pretty townie looking people, you might want to think about NKing them")

in this game

.

2. How can I, as scum, get tunnel-visioned?

Maybe tunnel vision isn't the right word; more like reach/crap-casing with whatever you can find to try to lynch someone.

3. Where have I suggested that I wanted to lynch Urza? I am not prepared to take a position on this yet. I think it's obvious that that was what you were trying to get me to say in your initial question on the topic. I.e., you created an argument against me then tried to get me to act in a way to support it. If you really thought I was trying to set lynches up, why would you have needed to ask me those questions?

I gave you a chance to clarify what you meant but you choose to just attack me for asking the questions. I pointed out what I felt was a contradiction in what you said (there must be scum on the CR wagon; Urza is town to me, CC is scum; then I asked, what if I'm not? does your initial belief still hold? you choose to just ignore answering that at all, which suggested to me that I was probably on to something about you)

CC is pretty obvScum, guys.

For what, again? You didn't answer the question from my previous post, asking what I've done makes me scum.
If you're talking about the FoSing stuff, that's pure BS and I think everyone sees that. It's clearly a way for cross-communication, which I, as scum, would have no need to speak up about and discourage as I've done.

[CarnCarn]

From just the voting records alone, I have concluded that there is at least 1 scum amoung these 4 players: Urza, Destructor, CC, and CR.

Can you explain this in more detail? Especially since you later say:

From the table, I have noted that neither Urza or Mizzy have done anything to make it into the table.

Urza is scummy based on voting record, yet, he doesn't make it into the table of scummy voting analysis?

[CarnCarn]

IIRC, the main reason was because Caboose was inactive, noncontributive. Therefore the three players that jumped on are listed. I then have to list Urza in the group because I'm basing the other three players on Urza being town and it being too quick (don't know how to explain this better. Since I'm basing one group on another factor, I have to add that factor to the group).

OK, I get this reasoning. Basically, the wagon on Urza built speed quickly (within one vote count). Urza is either town being wagoned by opportunistic scum, or he's scum whose wagon built quickly because it was all townies voting. The speed of the wagon being built could also indicate a lack of scum-bussing since scum generally want to protect partners and wouldn't jump on the wagon too quickly. So yeah, makes sense to think at least one of those 4 players is probably scum according to either of those scenarios.

[CarnCarn]

Well I'm going to focus on those four. To start off, I'll order them from scummiest to least scummiest:

CarnCarn
ClockworkRuse
Destructor
Urza

CC- When lookng back at vote records, CC seemed to hop on and off all the major wagons. When the wagon seemed to plateau, CC seemed to jump off. At the end of yesterday, CC was on the wagon that would have been lynched until Ort unvoted minutes before deadline hit.

I think CC has the best chance to be scum and therefore...

Vote: CarnCarn

Wait... I was on a wagon that didn't lead to yesterday's lynch of a townie (in fact, I was pretty opposed to it, like you), who never even claimed a role, so I'm more likely to be scum for that?

Hopping on and off wagons is not a real scumtell at all, either. If anything, it shows active scumhunting, or just aggressive playstyle.

Also, can you point to specific examples of where I "jumped off" when wagons started to "plateau"? If you look closely enough, I actually unvoted when CR had 4 votes and Urza had 4 votes (making them "not lynchable" (at deadline) by your definition), so that's not hopping off when the wagons were stalling at all, since my unvotes were what apparently caused the stalling you're talking about.

[CarnCarn]

LA until 1/7

[CarnCarn]

Well I'm going to focus on those four. To start off, I'll order them from scummiest to least scummiest:

CarnCarn
ClockworkRuse
Destructor
Urza

CC- When lookng back at vote records, CC seemed to hop on and off all the major wagons. When the wagon seemed to plateau, CC seemed to jump off. At the end of yesterday, CC was on the wagon that would have been lynched until Ort unvoted minutes before deadline hit.

I think CC has the best chance to be scum and therefore...

Vote: CarnCarn

Wait... I was on a wagon that didn't lead to yesterday's lynch of a townie (in fact, I was pretty opposed to it, like you), who never even claimed a role, so I'm more likely to be scum for that?

You were on a wagon in which I think that you thought was going to be the final wagon. This supports my reasoning (and is why I have it last in my reasonings) that you were trying really hard to get anybody lynched.

That's garbage. Nat would have been much easier to lynch if I wanted to lynch just anyone.

Hopping on and off wagons is not a real scumtell at all, either. If anything, it shows active scumhunting, or just aggressive playstyle.

That's a matter of opinion and circumstances. I think you were aggressive, yes, but I think your reason to be aggressive was to get a lynch.

So what? How does that make me more likely to be scum?

Also, can you point to specific examples of where I "jumped off" when wagons started to "plateau"? If you look closely enough, I actually unvoted when CR had 4 votes and Urza had 4 votes

Which vote count was that?

I don't remember exactly; I'm going off of your summary table. I could look it up if you don't believe it, but I think you've already done the work yourself.

(making them "not lynchable" (at deadline) by your definition), so that's not hopping off when the wagons were stalling at all, since my unvotes were what apparently caused the stalling you're talking about.

My reasonings were directly from the post counts that I posted. From those, when you made CR unlynchable, CR went from 4 to 5 votes through vote counts 6-8. In this I find it stalling as the momentum deterorated, especially in vote count 9 when MM jumps off which surely marked the end of the momentum. My whole case about you is really that you are really trying to get anybody lynched.

MM jumped off, but CR still had 4 votes at the time, I believe (enough to be lynched at deadline). If I really wanted to get anyone lynched, why would I have jumped off that wagon so quickly? Your accusation is inconsistent with my actions.

Don't have much time now, but with deadline looming I felt answering your defense deserved at least some time to avoid losing time later.

[CarnCarn]

I don't believe that this is what you were thinking when you FOS'd Axelrod and rofl.

Why not? Don't you think it's possible anti-town behavior? I suggested that's what I thought it was quite early. No, I didn't come out and say exactly what I said above, but I FoSed for anti-town behavior. What's contrived about that explanation? Why does FoSing for what I thought was anti-town "make no sense"?

You wagon-hopped yesterday.

I hopped from CR to Caboose to CR; look at Batt's vote analysis and you'll see that I unvoted them in positions that scum are not likely to unvote.

You assumed that Urza had a guilty on you.

Blatant misrep - I never thought he was a cop. Not much more to say about this one.

You tried to set me up.

I asked you a hypothetical question which you gave a very politically-correct answer. A townie would have responded with more conviction.

[CarnCarn]

Point by point:
• Anti-town and scummy are not the same thing.
• I can understand and appreciate FOSing someone for doing something anti-town that might allude to scummy intentions.
• So, there is a gap between what is anti-town and what is scummy.
• What you FOSed Axelrod and rofl for did not bridge this gap and your attempt at demonstrating that there was one - that one of them might have been the Traitor trying to help the Mafia choose a night kill - is a humongous reach.
• On top of that, I see no indication that this was even part of your thought process when you made the FOSes in the first place, which implies that you were backtracking when you suggested the Traitor theory.

I hate the anti-town =/= scum arguments. I really do. And they carry even less merit in this game when there is a townie working with the scum. The point is not that only Traitors can use town lists, but that both scum AND traitor can use them as a way for

cross

-communication.
This was certainly part of my thought process. I said very early that I don't like town lists because the people on them end up dead the next day. That's pretty much the condensed version of my explanation of town lists being possible method of cross-communication.
And really what is so scummy about FoSing Axel and rofl for this anyway? I never voted them, never pushed suspicion on them after the FoSes. Basically, the FoSes served their purpose of stopping town lists, which is what I wanted to see happen. You're pushing this absurd FoS theory so hard (and for so long, now), and with no one else agreeing, that I'm beginning to consider that you're just confused at this point, and not actually scum.

Regarding the cop thing, I never believed he was a cop because I don't think a cop would have acted the way he did. Therefore he could not have a real guilty on me. He could be making one up, however. Thus, expecting him to say he was a cop with a guilty on me doesn't mean that I actually thought he was a cop.

And I didn't answer your question, so political correctness, whatever it means in this context, doesn't come into the picture. I thought it was obvious that I ignored your question and called you scum instead. I saw were you were going and didn't want to go down that path, but you went there anyway.

Well, that

is

the politically-correct response (not answering the question because it's too much of a risk to commit one way or the other). I would expect a townie to be less afraid to say what they actually thought, instead of ignoring the question and calling the questioner scum for asking it. That's just based on standard mafia theory. Scum are more likely to be fencesitting than townies.

[CarnCarn]

1) But the CR lynch was coming to fruitation at the end of the day. If both Ort and Destructor did not change their votes, CR would have been lynched.

So why do I need to be on that wagon if I thought he was going to be deadline lynched anyway? Would would I do that as scum? How does adding on to the CR wagon make me more likely to be scum?

2) It makes you more likely to be scum because I find it more likely that scum would try and lynch ANYONE. Emphasis on ANYONE.

Being aggressive, on day one, doesn't mean that you want to get everyone lynched. And you didn't say "anyone" in response to the point about aggressiveness. That comment was made separately.

3) Ok, but you have to look at the actual vote counts to notice when there is a plateau and not just the summary. I already explained the unvoting of CR, but the unvoting of Urza is different. You unvoted Urza after 2 vote counts. You were the second to unvote him after people (myself and Mizzy at the top of my head) called suspicion onto that wagon.

Just because it "plateaued" doesn't mean he wasn't going to get lynched. He still had the necessary votes to be lynched at deadline at the time.

4)When the deadline was retracted, I think that you thought the wagon wasn't going into fruitation, even with the bare minimum votes required, so you went with a wagon that might come to fruitation due to a policy of lynching active lurkers. Then when Caboose actually starts to scumhunt your main reason is gone and you have to unvote. Then when deadline comes close again you go back to your CR vote. (this is all page 9 and 10 for reference)

This is one big assumption from the start and it's based on nothing, really. Yes, I choose to jump off a wagon that would be lynched at deadline to become the second vote on a wagon because that was more likely to be the lynch /sarcasm.
I went back to pages 9 and 10 and your facts of the story are simply wrong:
Caboose only gets up to 3 votes within that page. MM first, then me, then ThAd (whose vote post, on reread, is REALLY scummy). He is never lynchable during that time. And do you really consider Caboose's post on page 9 "scumhunting"? He was just answering questions here and there after his long hiatus. Also, again, ThAd's unvote post is scummy and it actually does what you are accusing

me

of. Are you by chance confusing my posts with his?

After that point, though, CR was the better lynch in my view because I felt he was at least equally scummy and had provided more content and connections that we could look back at the next day to find good leads. That wouldn't have been nearly as possible with Caboose. Basically, like I said, the CR lynch provided more info.

[CarnCarn]

CC: Why would anti-town =/= scum carry less merit? A traitor knows they are a traitor so they would behave as scum. Traitor should only take affect when a townie is killed and people are debating on whether they are the traitor or not.

Yeah, but the scum don't know who the traitor is. He has to be careful not to get lynched or NK'd by his teammates. Therefore, he has to act anti-town (but not

too

anti-town, of course), and in fact he is not much better than scum at all (we just don't need to kill him to win). There is generally little incentive for townies to act anti-town (it being against their wincon and whatnot), and even less to in this game because it just draws suspicion on yourself that you might be the traitor, even if you get lynched/NK'd and flip town. In other games, alignment reveal puts anti-town behavior in context. In this game, it doesn't, and that's why anti-town behavior by townies is even worse here than in other games. And what do you mean by "only take affect"?

[CarnCarn]

You're just going around in circles around my main point. You wanted to get someone lynched. What's the best way to do that? Vote for them...

OK, I wanted someone lynched so I voted them (that's the game, after all). But if I were scum and knew they were town (which is what you're suggesting), I have no reason to "pile on" (add more votes than the minimum necessary at deadline). That's just inviting suspicion without reason. Therefore, that's not scummy at all.

1) Missed the point again. I claimed you went to the wagon that had a good chance of going into fruitation (due to Caboose not contributing). When Caboose actually contributed (you like this term better than scumhunting?), you had to withdrawl your vote and go back to the largest wagon.

That's big reach. There chances of Caboose's "wagon", which only had 1 vote on it, having a better chance of being the lynching wagon at the time were not good (not when CR already had the necessary number of votes to be lynched at deadline). Therefore, that's not scummy at all. What did the "contribute"? He just posted to defend himself against lurking, then went back to lurking. And you are twisting/misrepping completely the reasons why I unvoted Caboose and went back to CR (which I gave already).

[CarnCarn]

CarnCarn, do you think Mizzy is town/scum? Why?

Town. Gut.

I'm not really sure why you pre-emptively said this. I didn't think urza gave any substantial breadcrumbs that he was a cop.

*facepalms*

4) Actually, that is a pretty generally accepted way to breadcrumb a cop investigation early in the game, when it's not worth claiming yet. That way if the cop turns up dead, the town can look back and say "hey look, he voted X with no explanation and didn;t move his vote...In fact, it's really the quintessential way to bread crumb a guilty in the early game...

He

brought up the scenario and accused me of:

Scum players tend to get nervous though. They wonder if the player is a cop with a guilty on them or something. In fact, that's exactly how your reaction reads to me, as a player who is hoping that a cop doesn't have a guilty on them.

Extending the discussion of the point he brought up is all I did.

Another question for CC: do you still find Urza town?

We haven't heard from him in a while. I found his thought process to be protown, and Caboose was scummy mostly for bouts of lurking while active in other games.

Is this not similar to the "anti-town does not equal scum" criticism that both I and I believe you have made (in relation to Mizzy)? You apparently think Caboose was anti-town, but not scum (indicated by your stance on his successor), but you still voted for him?

What? When did I think Caboose was anti-town but not scum? Yes, it's true that I thought Caboose's lurking was anti-town, likely to suggest he is scum, and that's why I voted him.

[CarnCarn]

This goes to what I am saying- anything which you thought suggested Caboose is scummy should suggest urza is scummy also.

It does. I don't just discard the actions of a replacement's predecessor. However, I've also noticed what I believe to be protown behavior on urza's part, which I never saw in Caboose.

What I meant is you seemingly changing your mind on Caboose when urza replaced him was analogous to the situation of Mizzy changing her mind on Ramus after Axelrod replaced him

Perhaps. What do you think this implies, if anything?

[CarnCarn]

Both moves are scummy if you voted for their predecessor and don't specifically feel the actions of the successor negate the behaviour of the predecessor. You agreed with the argument when I used it against Mizzy.

What made you think I don't feel that way?

[CarnCarn]

You were the 4th vote on the wagon, therefore not "pileing on."

Hmm, OK yeah; I was going on memory and it's not working now. I was the 5th vote on the Caboose/urza wagon and I'm confusing that with the CR one.

1) I don't know the exact reason, but I can guess from what you have already shown as to you going on wagons and this time I figure you're trying to get on early.

What have I already shown about going on wagons?

2) Again, the CR wagon plateaued... I've said this like 5 times, yet you continue to ignore this part to use the CR wagon in your defence.

It plateaued because

I unvoted him to make him unlynchable at deadline

. Of course I'm using that as defense because your accusation makes it sound like the reason why I unvoted is because it plateaued whereas the real story is that it plateaued because I unvoted. Just look at what happened between VC's 8 and 9:

5 ClockworkRuse (urielzyx, CarnCarn, Machiavellian-Mafia, Battousai, ortolan)
3 Battousai (Caboose, Ramus, destructor)
1 ortolan (ClockworkRuse)

3 ClockworkRuse (urielzyx, Battousai, ortolan)
2 Battousai (Caboose, destructor)
2 Caboose (Machiavellian-Mafia, CarnCarn)
2 ortolan (ClockworkRuse, ThAdmiral)

MM unvotes CR and votes Caboose. CR is no longer at L-2.
CC unvotes CR and votes Caboose. CR is no longer lynchable.
ThAdmiral votes Ort
Ramus unvotes myself

Yes, the CR wagon peaked at 5 votes, but when I unvoted, CR was still lynchable. On the other hand, when

you

unvoted him (by VC 10), he wasn't lynchable any more.

3) Why did you unvote Caboose then? I'm pretty sure it was because he became more active. Also, you can't use the "went back to lurking" as you unvoted before Caboose could be considered lurking again.

Hmm, yeah, he made some good points in that post, now that I remember it. You're right that's indeed why I unvoted him. Now that I think about it, his response to my question about his random vote on you suggests he wasn't trying to intentionally lurk, but did actually just forget about this game as he said. What concerned me was that he is generally a very active poster and his lack of that suggested something seriously wrong. But now, this puts Caboose/Urza in an even better light, now that I think about it.

Anyway, all I can say is that you're over-analyzing this voting record because you're wrong about me. Sure, you can look at some instances and say it was something scum would do, but there are also instances where it's definately not something scum would do, and I think you're tunneling in on only the former.

[CarnCarn]

ortolan, if you think you know who you're going to vote for, just go ahead and do it. Is your vote really contingent upon hearing what M-M and CR think?

[CarnCarn]

M-M, if you don't think destructor's case is strong, what do you think of Batt's case? And why exactly do you think destructor is likely to be scum?

[CarnCarn]

when his successor replaced in you assuming he had a guilty on you

you switch over to destructor based mainly on the fact he is attacking you

Drink that Kool-Aid if you wish.

Unless others on your wagon are likely to change over to destructor I think you should claim soon.

I'll claim if/when I think it's useful.

[CarnCarn]

I'm a Townie. No special name, no special powers.

[CarnCarn]

I don't buy this. Lots of people agree that listing who you think is pro-town is anti-town because it indicates to the scum who is least likely to be mislynched and so guides their kill, which is what I believed you were referring to when you said that those people tend to "end up dead." I still maintain that your cross-communication theory was not in your mind when you made the FOSes in the first place and created after the fact.

Regardless of what you believe about it, the facts of the matter are that I saw it as anti-town and FoSed them for it. If you think about it in terms of this game, my explanation is perfectly logical and a perfectly legitimate reason to FoS. For some reason, you don't want to think about it in terms of this game.

I called you out on it before you ever had a chance to follow it up. This would not a point in your favour anyway. At best, it would only indicate that you realised the argument was weak and decided to drop it.

No, I never followed it up because I had town reads on Axelrod (via Ramus) and roflcopter otherwise. CR and Caboose were much more suspicious to me.

This is inconsistent. Now you're adding that the FOS's purpose was to stop town lists? Why didn't you say this earlier? Why FOS for this instead of explaining why they're anti-town?

Did I really have to state it that way? They were FoSes but it was pretty clear that neither Axel nor rofl were primary suspects to me. Like I said really early in the game, I use FoSes & IGMEOYs as in-thread notetaking, not necessarily to indicate the people I think are scummiest. I FoS behavior that I need to note in the future in case other things develop.

What? So you thought he was going to fake-claim?

If he did claim, yes I would have been confident that it was a fake-claim. I'm surprised I'm getting so much heat for this when he's the one who brought up this whole thing anyway.

---

Well, I'm probably the lynch today. My gut tells me the scumteam is likely to be Batt/ThAd. I think destructor's questioning hasn't really been that scummy; I disagree with him that my FoSing was scummy, but he really seems misguided more than anything. Batt, on the other hand, offers a case that is a big reach and uses select data to make my actions look worse than they are. ThAd is scummy to me because of his repeated D1 wishy-washiness and general lack of contribution. Also, this is the one person that Batt has pretty much avoided paying any attention to this game (suggesting perhaps an attempt to remove any connections to a partner). If Batt ever flips scum, ThAd would be the best bet on his partner.

With that said,

Unvote: destructor
Vote: Battousai

[CarnCarn]

waiting for petroleumjelly to call the game.

[CarnCarn]

I was also VT, just like I said; I attacked ort start of D2 for the hammering unvote thing, which destructor defended. I never suspected the combination, though, so very nice play.

I was going to claim Traitor and see what would happen, but decided against it. destructor's case was soooo weak, but Batt's look more forced. *sigh*

So, the town only had 1 PR and the scum had 1 PR, right? It was really sketchy D3 when there were so many PR claims; the odds just were too low that all of those people could be town.

So yeah, that's my post-game take on this and obv also wondering who the traitor was. Maybe it was rofl after all?

[CarnCarn]

another question for petroleumjelly: why did you ban role flavor quoting (text from the book) after initially allowing it?

[CarnCarn]

I was a little disheartened that there did not ever seem to be people reading over the game for the sole purpose of looking for “traitor hints.”

Well, I was trying to find communication between traitor and mafia, but when destructor said we don't have to lynch the Traitor to win, I kinda stopped caring. Would town win by lynching the two mafia or do they have to get the Traitor, too?

Although the town loses some power in that the mafia/traitor may be able to claim a power role ‘safely’ when the correspondong power role dies, so too does the town gain power in having the option of claiming Traitor in certain situations. There are quite a good many of interesting scenarios that could result from that – for if the mafia acts on reliance of such a claim, they may out themselves only to learn the game is not as over as they thought.

I considered claiming Traitor before getting lynched, but I failed to see how it would either stop my lynch or help town. There are some situations where it would have been good to claim it, but I decided it wasn't the right one.

Thanks for the commentary, petroleumjelly.

[CarnCarn]

http://www.quicktopic.com/42/H/Qif4kYZ7D5ry

wow you two talked a lot - that was... insightful.