Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[ortolan]

## 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?

[ortolan]

nah go ahead, you only live once.

[ortolan]

ClockworkRuse your reason for voting for me is horrible. It's almost become a fashion recently to self-vote- doing so and defending people who do so hardly seems scummy to me.

Thus

FoS: ClockworkRuse

And I believe I must have used the hash symbols as I was told to use them in another game and got mixed up with this, or saw someone else use them. I don't remember to be honest.

[ortolan]

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.

[ortolan]

And second, the fact that you thought I voted Ramus tells me that you aren't reading the thread completely.

My apologies. Ironically I actually did re-read the entire thread before making my previous post, but I must have mixed you up with CarnCarn. In fact this if anything merely strengthens my point- I find it somewhat bizarre that you would not vote Ramus because there is "adequate pressure", yet you would vote for someone for defending him. This almost seems to amount to a "vote-by-proxy" and as MM said in 68, could well serve as a way of getting some of the benefits of an actual vote on Ramus without drawing attention to yourself.

This is pretty much dead wrong. If you haven't noticed, not everyone is voting Ramus because he self-voted.

According to the last votecount, he only has 1 vote. It's strange you seem to be at least partially appealing to argument from the majority here. I find this odd because not only is it a bad argument, but you have four votes to his 1 at the moment (I'm not one of them either). What reason do you think people have for voting for you? Is it because of who you've voted/not voted for, or the *way* you've justified your actions?

Look back and read over his answers, he has basically refused to explain himself.

The point is that he *doesn't* have a case to answer to based purely on his null-tell self-vote. If you want to pick out something that he's done *after* that, then by all means, go ahead. I'll give you one: Post 60. Here I feel he conceded his gambit too readily and then directed suspicion at four different people based on a fairly slim, one-line justification for each. If that's what you were referring to then we're at least partially in agreement, but I still don't see what about his initial self-vote he's obliged to defend.

[ortolan]

I see where you're coming from. My feeling is that people should not be made to defend non-scummy actions (such as a self-vote). It sets a dangerous precedent. If you're going to attack him I would prefer if it was done based on something more substantial.

[ortolan]

My bad, that is still a remnant of my initial random vote.

I would feel most comfortable about lynching ClockworkRuse. Obviously I am biased due to his vote on me, but I feel his case was genuinely without merit.

Not only do I still believe I was defending a null-tell by Ramus and thus was in the right (objections aside), but CR's vote on me still seems to amount to voting-by-proxy.

Unvote

Vote: ClockworkRuse

[ortolan]

Would you be comfortable lynching CR right now?

I am not "comfortable" lynching him so to speak. I would prefer more discussion first. But I certainly think his play so far is worthy of a vote, even if it puts him at L-2.

And what do you mean by "voting-by-proxy"?

I can only reiterate what CarnCarn told me earlier- read the thread (I know you replaced, but as you say, the thread's only 6 pages long...).

I will quote what I said previously for your benefit:

In fact this if anything merely strengthens my point- I find it somewhat bizarre that you would not vote Ramus because there is "adequate pressure", yet you would vote for someone for defending him. This almost seems to amount to a "vote-by-proxy" and as MM said in 68, could well serve as a way of getting some of the benefits of an actual vote on Ramus without drawing attention to yourself.

For reference; Machiavellian-Mafia and Battousai talk about the same idea (that CR deliberately chose to vote for me for defending Ramus instead of Ramus himself) in posts 115, 118 and 124.

[ortolan]

Not only has Ort practically admitted to voting me as an OMGUS jesture and then the case that others have been pushing, he's contradicting himself to give destructor an answer he thinks sounds town.

So you openly admit that this vote is an OMGUS?

What about my vote on you has ANY affect in how you vote? I get your second point about the "voting-by-proxy", which is a ridiculous point in itself as I was going after who I felt scummy, but how does that make you biased?

Here you're just taking a ridiculous interpretation of what I said. Saying "obviously I am biased" was not "admitting I was OMGUSing" at all. In fact it was to pre-empt people accusing me of OMGUSing. It was saying "obviously this looks like an OMGUS, but here are my reasons". EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.

Secondly, you can hardly say my "voting-by-proxy" point is ridiculous- both Battousai and TheAdmiral said exactly the same thing- you voted for me to avoid visibly adding to the Ramus wagon.

So, you aren't comfortable lynching me, you'd like more discussion, but you are going to put me two votes away from a lynch. Oh and I'd like to point out, and keep this in mind this quote is literally two posts before this, that Ort said this; "I would feel most comfortable about lynching ClockworkRuse." This contradiction seems kind of important.

Wow, you're really clutching at straws now. Firstly, putting you "two votes away from a lynch" means absolutely nothing. Saying the "n-1" or "n-2" vote on a bandwagon is somehow dangerous or scummy is just not true, unless it's an obvious attempt at a quicklynch, which mine clearly wasn't. If anyone hammers without good reason they will come under heavy suspicion. So your first point has no merit.

On your second, point, Congratulations! You caught me using the term "comfortable" in two completely different contexts and now cite this as an inconsistency. I firstly said "I would feel most comfortable lynching ClockworkRuse"- meaning: you are my prime suspect. destructor then took this out of context and said "would you be comfortable lynching CR right now?" and I replied "I am not 'comfortable' lynching him so to speak". NOTE THE INVERTED COMMAS AND THE FACT THE FIRST USAGE WAS QUALIFIED WITH "most". As such you can interpret my position as being "he is whom I find most suspicious but I would like more discussion first".

Also note, that Ort has to use the cases brought against me by others and has little to nothing to add to my case. In other words, Ort has been sitting around and waiting for a reasonable case to build.

This is so ridiculously untrue it's not funny. Reread the thread- I have been attacking you since post 70 (Page 3!) In fact EVERY one of my posts since then has been in reference to you. You may be referring to the fact that the first time I *voted* for you was Post 136. I think if anything you should be thanking me for holding out for that long- I certainly see no reason to unvote you now.

I would like to know how comfortable everyone would be in lynching me today.

Even more comfortable than I was before, after your latest completely meritless attempt to attack me.

[ortolan]

I'm interested in, if my attack is so unmerited, why you got so worked up over it.

Oh, sorry, next time you make bad arguments I'll just let them stand.

[ortolan]

That's not what I said. You have every right to defend yourself. But, if you look back up, you'll see that the diction and the caps lock bits show that you got very worked up over something you consider insignificant.

When did I say I consider being attacked by you insignificant? I think you're scum and I'm not going to sit back and let you construct ground-less cases against me. I consider that I thoroughly refuted every single one of the points in your last post and in response it seems you've resorted to suggesting I got "worked up", as though I am "paniccing scum".

EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.

Actually, I don't agree fully with this sentiment; I feel that an OMGUS vote is scummy because it is an easy vote to make that doesn't take thought, doesn't utilize logic or a case, and in general, is anti-town. Anti-town != scum, but it does = scum

my

.

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

Also waiting for an answer to #155.

Strong FoS: Mizzy

for this post. To your first point: if you've done debating you'll know about the technique of "even if"- "even if so and so a point of yours is right, then...". Me saying "even apart from this" was an example of this. I firstly denied that my vote on ClockworkRuse amounted to an OMGUS. I then said even if it was, it's not a scumtell. You suggested that OMGUS may in fact be a scumtell, but did not address the fact that I intentionally denied my vote amounted to an OMGUS in the first place. This is not my reason for voting you however- it is your second claim, that I was "waiting around for others to make cases for me". This is just a parrot of the point ClockworkRuse already made and ignores the fact I already thoroughly refuted that this was the case (see my posts 70 and onwards). Either you haven't been reading and took ClockworkRuse's word for gospel or you had been reading and deliberately ignored the fact this point was blatantly untrue. Neither is forgivable at this point in the game.

...And I just went to reply to you, destructor and realised you've made exactly the same incorrect OMGUS accusation.

Why do you think a player making a weak case is a good enough reason to think they're scum?

If you read my posts you'd realise my case against him is far more substantial. Even take his last response to me, which amounts to trying to defer suspicion onto me because I "took too much effort in replying". I have felt his arguments against me since I've been actively voting for him have been even more horrible than those he made prior.

And on your comment on Battousai; while I certainly won't deny the possibility he's scum I don't like how you've been singling in upon him since your very first post of content. He openly conceded that his pressure vote was exactly what it was when he made it. I personally don't think scum would make such an attention-drawing move.

Also; destructor, I am suspicious of how aggressive your approach has been ever since you replaced in. I also dislike your justification for trying to divert suspicion from ClockworkRuse.

FoS: destructor

[ortolan]

Firstly;

Oh, and I'd like to ask if when using Fong's Gambit, should you ask for more pressure? Doesn't that hinder with the gambit?

And where's the answer to 155?

Seconding an answer to post 155;
Oh, and I'd like to ask if when using Fong's Gambit, should you ask for more pressure? Doesn't that hinder with the gambit?

How was I to know that a question which seemingly has nothing to do with me was in fact addressed specifically to me? I suggest you be (much) clearer in the future. And this just seems again like you're trying to alternate between criticism of me/Ramus to build a case on either of us (I was not the one "employing Fong's gambit", he was). Anyhow; I don't really know why/how to answer your question, you are apparently referring to Ramus' post 52 where he suggests he deliberately brought pressure on himself by self-voting (see; in future when you're trying to build a case against someone it's polite to actually link to the posts you're talking about rather than making them do all the legwork- in this case I'll indulge you as you clearly haven't got a leg to stand on). Firstly; again, why are you asking me this? Seems like a question better directed at Ramus. Secondly, he openly acknowledged earlier it was his first time attempting a self-vote, so he may just be inexperienced. Alternatively, he is scum trying the gambit poorly. Either way this is entirely irrelevant to my case against you.

@ Mizzy: are you aware your strongest argument against me at this point is that my vote against ClockworkRuse *may* have amounted to an OMGUS? I also don't like you "unvoting" in preparation for a new vote without having the guts to follow through.

@ CR again:

The way you worded the post, it didn't sound like you were denying it was an OMGUS. It read like you were attempting to acknowledge and dismiss it. So it isn't my fault you are being called on an OMGUS.

As I already said, you can interpret it either way and you still don't have a case against me. If voting for someone voting for you was an automatic scumtell just think about what it would mean for the dynamics of the game (hell, read the wiki entry on OMGUS, nowhere does it suggest it's an automatic scumtell). Anyhow I had further reasons for voting for you- it started with the manner of your attack on me and the implied attack on Ramus (note: the "manner" rather than the mere "fact" of your attack). Also, you've subsequently given me even more reasons to vote for you.

@ Mizzy:

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.

No, I am implying that he is lazy. As you point out, he hasn't really been opportunistic.

Please be clear, are you suggesting I am "lazy town" or "lazy scum"? If "lazy scum" I don't see how this is much different from being "opportunistic scum", so I am skeptical of your distinction. If you are merely suggesting I am "lazy town" then why does it look as though you're mounting a case against me?

[ortolan]

How was I to know that a question which seemingly has nothing to do with me was in fact addressed specifically to me?

Because it was addressed to you, and we even reminded you several times after the fact that it was addressed to you.

Um, no it wasn't obviously addressed to me, otherwise I would have answered it previously. How the hell am I to know a post about Ramus' play is addressed to me?

I second an earlier point that the lurkers should post more.

[ortolan]

Considering that at least two of us had entire posts directed to you that included references to the question, it should have been obvious.

It was obvious, after that. It just wasn't at all clear from his initial post.

[ortolan]

Before I go through the posts, the Fong's Gambit question wasn't just to you, Ort. It was to the entire town.

That's not what Mizzy seems to think. You both reiterated it as though it was addressed to me, and as though I was somehow to have already known that. But this is a fairly pointless train of discussion.

Please post your more reasons to vote. I would love to see a case summary from you.

I have already done so, I have little of substance to add at this point.

[ortolan]

I've done enough of your work for you. If you have any further problems with my attack or vote on you please bring them to my attention.

[ortolan]

I don't really see any reason not to put your suspicions all in one post, ort, so are you just not doing it to be belligerent to CR or do you have a real reason to refuse?

I'm not trying to be particularly belligerent but it is irritating that in the past when I tried to construct a case against him or respond to him rather than engaging in debate he makes smug, basically irrelevant remarks like

I'm interested in, if my attack is so unmerited, why you got so worked up over it.

Also he and Mizzy have blatantly tried to spread a mistruth that I was opportunistic in regards to attacking him solely because my *vote* came after everyone else's, and I'd somehow "parasited" off everyone else's cases.

Anyhow clearly town has interest in hearing my reasons for voting for CR again, and my refusal to reiterate has apparently been interpreted as scummy by some, so here it is, together with some new points (by a re-read of the game):

Firstly he asks me about my use of ##, which implies he has his attention on me from the start.

In Post 54 he votes for me with a question, not a case: "Why are you defending Ramus?" A common theme of his are "pressure votes"- which he openly acknowledges as such. Seems more like an excuse for voting without giving good reasons to me. Also basically acknowledging they're "pressure votes" at the time basically diminishes their effect.

In Post 70 I reply:

ClockworkRuse your reason for voting for me is horrible. It's almost become a fashion recently to self-vote- doing so and defending people who do so hardly seems scummy to me.

Thus

FoS: ClockworkRuse

Anyone accusing me of either OMGUSing or joining his bandwagon late should just read this post again. Not only do I express suspicion at an early point in the game (but didn't want to put him on L-3 so early), but I clearly state my suspicions derive from the *reason* for his vote for me, rather than the mere fact.

I also note at this point that Mizzy at this point says "she doesn't see the wagon on ClockworkRuse". No reasons though. She also continues to attack Ramus (but manages to avoid diverting her attentions from Ramus to me for the time being.)

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.

Post 89:

Do you think I did need to jump on that wagon? Why? What benefit would it be for scum to concentrate on someone else when someone is under heavy scrutiny?

There are many actually, including distancing self from townie misslynch or garnering favour with townies.

Alright Battousai, I'm alright with you voting me. But I'll tell everyone now, I don't really feel that much pressure from votes. If you are going to vote me, ask me questions.

This is clearly not true, you've made a big deal out of my vote for you (although you were trying to make a big deal out of everything I did before then).

Post 110:

This is pretty much dead wrong. If you haven't noticed, not everyone is voting Ramus because he self-voted. Look back and read over his answers, he has basically refused to explain himself. The fact that you defended him detracts from any reactions that we might get from him and at this point in the game, reactions are very important.

This isn't really a valid point because me defending him was based on the act of his self-vote in the first place, not the way he played having done so. Perhaps I should have allowed pressure to be applied to him but the fact was that the exact same act of self-voting had just occurred in another game I'm still playing in and it ultimately led to a large theory discussion which wasted time and got nowhere. I did not really want a repeat. And the arguments against self-voting themselves are pretty weak so I felt it best to pre-empt them. However, they way you've expressed it in this post amounts to a post-hoc justification for voting for me- the first actual justification you've given I think.

Post 131:

But defending someone before they've had a chance to respond detracts from hunting and that is scummy/anti-town. I won't support that kind of behavior.

Again, you reiterate your sole reason for voting for me- policy. You think defending another is inherently scummy. This is not at all consistent with your acknowledged tunnel vision in attacking me.

Then we have post 152 in response to his vote on me which I've already responded to and shown to be rubbish. Then we have crapposts 154 and 159, which both make the same point:

But, if you look back up, you'll see that the diction and the caps lock bits show that you got very worked up over something you consider insignificant.

Here he is criticising me for making convincing arguments. And suggesting I got worked up over something I consider "insignificant" (I don't see where either the idea that I got worked up or that I don't consider his attack on me as significant comes from).

170: again says I am being defensive and this is a scumtell. He also continues to fixate on his and Mizzy's OMGUS tangent (despite me having expressly denied this and it being a crap argument anyway). Also contributes this:

I'd also like to know what you thought of my post 159 regarding your diction and caps lock.

ThIS DoES NoT MeRiT A RePLY!

Then there's this bizarre question from CR about Fong's gambit which Mizzy seemed to think was addressed to me even if CR himself apparently didn't know. I honestly don't know what they were trying to pull there.

Anyhow for both bad play and scummy motives CR still tops my suspect list- if he is scum, Mizzy is a good contender for accomplice.

CR, Mizzy, ThAdmiral: I have answered your request in good faith. I would appreciate if you (CR in particular) could bring something more substantive to the table than for example "lol! you got worked up! how scummy!"

[ortolan]

I'm rather worried that someone opportunistic or simply not reading properly might find either of your last two posts a convincing attack on me, CR.

Firstly; I put you at L-2, not L-1. Even though you corrected it in your subsequent post this mistake is hardly forgivable (especially considering how much of a big deal you make of it) considering it's already been discussed and there is a vote count on every page. I also dispute that there is anything wrong with putting someone on L-2, especially when the case against you is as strong as it is.

And it seemed like you were making it an OMGUS.

This doesn't even make sense. Why would I deliberately make my post something you consider a scumtell? I deny both that it was OMGUS, and that an OMGUS is scummy, in that order. Most of your ensuing posts still concern this dead-end OMGUS accusation so I shan't deal with them individiually.

I've given plenty of justification for keeping my vote on you. A larger scale post is on it's way, actually. But for now; this was a valid point. The initial suspicion started with the self-vote, which you defended. The votes stayed there because of his refusal to answer questions after you gave him a defense. Which was part of his supposed gambit, I believe.

Actually in that following post you seem to have distanced yourself from the attack on me and voted for someone else. I don't think I'm ready to reciprocate just yet.

Also about diction: You're saying my diction suggested I was overly defensive. I disagree. What else exactly do you expect me to reply with?

It's not just "lol Youse got workz up! Scum!" As you will see.

Um, well it appears to be, as you seem to have decided I'm not even worth voting for anymore.

The words “Obviously I am biased due to his vote on me” mean that my vote has some affect on the way Ort would vote, which to me spells OMGUS.

Again; I already addressed this thoroughly in Post 153. It was intended to mean "obviously it looks like I'm biased, but here are my reasons". I consider I have backed it up adequately for it not to amount to OMGUS, so I won't deal with this again.

About Battousai: I've reread his posts and I do see the case against him. Unfortunately I'm not aware of his meta and so am not sure whether his slim posts and fairly slim justifications are a constant or not. I still prefer the case against CR- he has consistently demonstrated more thought and more argument in his attacks. And I've disagreed strongly with almost all of it. I see his approach as being more calculated; whereas I'm not sure what to make of Battousai at this point.

[ortolan]

Um, you're not the only person making a case against Battousai. But yes, I see the argument that he is scum based on what others as well as yourself have said. This does not mean I don't think there's a higher likelihood you are scum at this point.

[ortolan]

As in I see your posts are more deliberate and thoughtful than his and I find them just as, if not more scummy.

[ortolan]

I don't get the argument that I'm "distancing" from my scumbuddy. As far as I'm aware I've never said anything in support of CR (and most of my game content has been attacks on him). Unless you're suggesting using FoS is somehow scummy by policy?

While he may have zoned in on me to begin with, or "tunnel visioned" as he called it, I never reciprocated beyond voting for him for aforementioned reasons

[ortolan]

I apologise, I got halfway through a re-read yesterday then got interrupted

I didn't want to post anything more because I haven't yet seen any reason to change my vote and didn't want to simply re-iterate what I previously said about CR.

Will finish re-read then post again tonight (Aussie time, it's 7pm here already)

[ortolan]

I am somewhat torn, because if it wasn't for CR I see myself voting roflcopter at this point. This is based on him being obsessed with accusing others of "distancing" which seems to be a prime scum excuse for going after townies when they lynch a mafia player- he has accused both me and Caboose of "distancing" ourselves from CR (but later retracted the comment about me). Furthermore rofl seems to be voting Caboose after MM already made the case for him, even though immediately before rofl only thought Caboose worthy of being classified as "ambiguous".

It seems implausible that CR and roflcopter are scum together however, due in part to roflcopter's very vocal mudslinging.

And CR still strikes me as scummy, as recently as Post 292 he is still using the same (imo very bad) arguments to attack me (even though he has ostensibly withdrawn his case on me due to lack of evidence), which amount to these:

Ortolan's defense of Ramus detracts from the reactions that we can get from the latter.

Essentially CR voted for me based on policy, because potentially answering someone else's case can detract from the responses they give. He didn't ever argue this actually indicated I was scum, just that it wasn't helpful to town. Not only this, but he then went on to say:

And if you missed it, Ramus

did

defend himself. And his defense was better than anything Ortolan could give. And no where did I imply that Ramus was "oh-mah-gawd total scum" scummy. Hell, I barely even gave him a passing look.

So basically he's acknowledging in this that Ramus did defend himself anyway and these were "better" than the responses I could give, entailing that necessarily what I said did not detract from Ramus' need to defend himself (because he did so better than I could anyway), and thus there was not even policy reason to vote for me.

So the beginnings of CR's case actually amounted to nothing- he was voting for a policy reason which in fact wasn't a reason (yet he pursued me so persistently)

Rather than Caboose or myself, I see Mizzy as a more likely scumbuddy with CR. I dislike how she happily attacked me alongside CR then when he admitted to tunneling me, as if in synchronisation, she began to focus elsewhere also. And I'm still suspicious of the crap that went on with Post 155- Mizzy interpreting CR's posts for him etc.

And finally agreed with someone else who said that if nothing else one of the biggest merits of the CR lynch is the information potential. If he's town and thinks the people attacking him are scum he should be happy to have them exposed as such. roflcopter, as an alternative lynch target would not provide so much information (due to him not making/eliciting such lengthy discussion as of yet). Furthermore, I think his generally impulsive play may be somewhat explained by his meta (I am playing with him in another game where he's behaved similarly.)

[ortolan]

Unvote

Not commenting on why at this point.

[ortolan]

I believe CR's claim, for reasons relating to my own role/flavour

It seems quite unlikely that he would get that as a fakeclaim

[ortolan]

You've got your eye on me for preventing someone who you think is town from being lynched?

As should be obvious, explaining why I don't think CR is scum requires me at least partially roleclaiming. If you want me to, say so rather than subtly rolefishing.

Contrary to what CC thinks, my unvote on CR was a reaction to not thinking he was scum, rather than thinking Natirasha was. I don't believe I ever suggested Natirasha was scum.

And furthermore I believe withdrawing my vote on CR has been somewhat vindicated since, but I will wait for him to reply before saying why exactly.

[ortolan]

Followed by the ignoring of CC's #431 and destructor's #432.

Post 435 was intended as a reply to them.

In Post 435 I clearly stated my reason for unvoting CR related to my role

You then attempt to justify that lack of content with a role allusion, and then accuse me of rolefishing when I had no idea that it had to do with your role at all.

This doesn't even make sense...I alluded to my role as a reason for my unvote so unless you weren't reading:

IGMEOY: ortolan

for his #428 and especially for posting after that and not explaining himself. Holding off on a vote until he speaks up about it.

Implies you want me to state my role (because that is all I can do to elaborate).

I also didn't think my post was aggressively worded, beyond the role-fishing accusation.

Ort, I'm not sure if I understand what you want me to respond to.

It was just MM's question, which you did.

Anyway, I've realised there probably isn't any harm in role-claiming at this point anyway, because my ability will be used up as of tonight.

I am La Esmeralda. Not only this but my pm specifically mentions Djali, my precocious but misunderstood goat. Thus I see it as an unlikely (although not impossible) fakeclaim for CR as scum to get. However, as pointed out by MM, this fact coupled with the fact he didn't even vote Natirasha to save himself when on the chopping block leads me strongly to believe he is town.

My ability: on two nights in the game I can seduce (roleblock) someone. I did so to roflcopter last night.

On roflcopter's death I agree with ThAdmiral- I am surprised firstly he was town, but moreso that scum decided he was worth killing. It's possible he was the traitor; but then it seems unlikely he would target people that would make him an attractive night-kill.

I find Mizzy increasingly scummy, and will do a re-read soon which will probably culminate in a case.

[ortolan]

I'm sorry to hear that, Thestatusquo.

I have found the following inconsistencies in Mizzy's play:

Votes Ramus for self-voting. She mainly pursued him day one while also defending CR. This was apparently a "policy" vote, though, as she has not pursued Ramus' successor.

Post 73 criticises the wagon on CR without giving reasons.

Post 99 uses CC's Post 95 criticism of urielzyx's Post 94 "WIFOM" again to defend ClockworkRuse.

Post 158 I find extremely questionable:

EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.

Actually, I don't agree fully with this sentiment; I feel that an OMGUS vote is scummy because it is an easy vote to make that doesn't take thought, doesn't utilize logic or a case, and in general, is anti-town. Anti-town != scum, but it does = scum

my

.

This is a plain denial of the fact that even if my vote on CR was what is generally considered "OMGUS", i.e. I was voting him after he voted me, it certainly wasn't made with no reasons.

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

This is patently untrue. At that point I had made substantial arguments against CR, and furthermore actively argued with him. See my posts: 70, 105, 113, 117, 136, 138, 153. How can you possibly claim I was parasiting on others' arguments? You seem to just be copying what CR said in Post 152 without applying any critique to it:

Also note, that Ort has to use the cases brought against me by others and has little to nothing to add to my case. In other words, Ort has been sitting around and waiting for a reasonable case to build.

She also revisits this in a qualified form in Post 164, without any regard to the fact it's entirely untrue:

No, I am implying that he is lazy. As you point out, he hasn't really been opportunistic.

THEN, there's also the stuff about wanting me to answer CR's "open" question:

Also waiting for an answer to #155.

etc. etc. Still inexplicable and as a result suspicious. Also re-read Posts 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 186 and 188 to see she was in fact wrong about whom the question was addressed to.

What interests me is Axelrod's Post 214. Note Axelrod replaced Ramus, who Mizzy had been attacking all day. Furthermore, he even goes on to vote CR, who Mizzy had been defending all day. This should support all of Mizzy's suspicions about Ramus/Axelrod. But I don't even see her comment on it. This is what makes it look like her attack on Ramus was purely "policy". Furthermore I wonder why she attacked him so strongly then dropped off apathetically when his replacement came in, even though his play should have affirmed her suspicions, if they genuinely existed.

I don't think he's scum, no, and I do think his wagon has a high amount of scum in it because he's intelligent and very perceptive; a dangerous pro-town player to have.

At that point there were five players voting for CR: urielzyx, ortolan, Axelrod, CarnCarn, roflcopter. So even if all three scum were voting for him (I would be surprised if this were the case anyhow) two townies were also. Furthermore, even as you describe his play as "intelligent and perceptive", he had actually admitted that in the case of his main target for the game, me, he had been tunneling. So it seems you had a higher estimation of CR's play than even he did. Here is my theory about your motivations: you jumped in in Post 73 to defend CR. I think you, as scum, wanted to gain brownie points by defending someone you know to be town (which it looks like CR is in light of recent events). Thus if he were lynched you could claim to have been defending a townie. That's why you defended him without even justifying doing so. And that's why you've been more complimentary to his play than even he himself has been.

The best part, really, though, is in Post 363 you voted Natirasha. Thus you want him lynched. THEN, when I unvote in response to CR's role-claim, which as CarnCarn pointed out has the effect of lynching the person you wanted lynched (Natirasha), and saving the person you didn't want lynched (CR), you actually try to throw suspicion onto me for it (Post 436).

Vote: Mizzy

I will probably make a post with commentary on more recent events but I really did have a lot to say about Mizzy

[ortolan]

Mizzy, unfortunately you've missed the most substantial part of my attack on you.

Why did you drop off on attacking Axelrod/Ramus when Axelrod replaced in, when he voted CR which should have vindicated your suspicions?

Furthermore, why were you so defensive of CR even before there was good reason to believe he was townie?

Finally, why did you lay suspicion on me for causing the person you wanted to be lynched to be lynched, and for saving the person you didn't want to be lynched from being lynched?

[ortolan]

I also don't credit you alone with saving CR so stop trying to look like a hero.

Well, I clearly did "save" him in the most trivial sense in that my Unvote caused Natirasha to be lynched instead of him. Remember, it's why CarnCarn voted me and you IGMEOY'ed me. What other sense could you mean "save" in? Do you mean "clear" him? Why are you talking as though CR is 100% confirmed town? Do you know something we don't? It's not impossible that he was given that as a fakeclaim, even if it is unlikely. Also it's possible I am his scumbuddy and merely voted to save him at the last minute. Why have you totally ignored these possibilities?

[ortolan]

I don't see how I have? Your comment about me not having "saved" CR doesn't make any sense to me under either interpretation I've tried to apply to it- it's either simply true (because I saved him by unvoting) or you mean it in the sense that he is "cleared", and I don't know why you would assume that.

Also,

In part because Ramus' playstyle and logic were what I distrusted. I felt that Axel voted CR for reasons that in his mind were sound, and not because he was trying to lynch a townie. In short, I found the replacement less anti-town than Ramus.

I don't like voting for someone for being "anti-town" in the way you've done here. It implies you don't think they are scum but will vote for them anyway. This is what I was getting at- if you thought Ramus was scum, then you should have voted Axelrod. If you didn't think Ramus was scum, but simply a bad townie, you shouldn't have been voting for him to begin with. Townies are still townies nonetheless.

[ortolan]

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

Well, my role description mentions that any other day I would be eking a living with Djali, but today more important events are afoot. I admit in retrospect this alone wasn't the best reason for unvoting- at the time it was as much of an impulse as anything else. However, in light of e.g.:

CR: You could have voted Nat yesterday so that you could avoid getting lynched. Why didn't you do that?

I find it unlikely that he, as scum would take the lynch without voting for someone he knew to be town. So I think my unvote has been somewhat vindicated since.

You have missed parts and tried to gracefully side-step the entire unjustification of your gripe about my suspicion on you.

Please tell me what I have sidestepped. I found inconsistencies in your play and pointed them out to you.

Scum are anti-town, are they not? It implies that all I knew about him for sure was that his play was anti-town. I can't know whether or not the person I suspect is scum, so I go with the basics first. And to me, scum are bad "townies." They try to appear as town but aren't actually pro-town. Your disagreement with my playstyle does not make me scummy.

I don't understand this. Clearly there is a distinction between bad townies and scum players. If townies get lynched, regardless of whether they are "bad" townies or not, you are bringing the scum one step closer to victory. You seem to be saying you voted for Ramus even though you didn't actually think he was scum, merely "anti town" (which you've clearly distinguished from being "scummy"). I don't see how this is pro-town (and here I don't retain your distinction, because I think by making this "anti-town" move, you _are_ indeed more likely to be scummy).

Since we had a major wagon on a mod-confirmed town player

Not guaranteed to be true actually. Did you forget there's a traitor in this game?

[ortolan]

He obviously means "miller". I meant to ask you about that also but I'd forgotten. If the town believes you are possessed by the devil does that mean you flip guilty to cop investigations?

Mizzy- leaving aside the whole suspecting me for unvoting CR thing, there are still aspects of your play I don't understand, would you please answer the following questions:

1)

I also don't credit you alone with saving CR so stop trying to look like a hero.

What, exactly, did you mean by this?

2) Do you believe that on day one, CR was being consistently "intelligent and very perceptive" when he spent most of the day attacking me, and subsequently admitted he had been tunneling?

3) Theoretically, if you were a cop, had investigated someone and knew them to be innocent, but found their play extremely unhelpful to town, would you still call for them to be lynched?

[ortolan]

I am La Esmerelda's goat's Djali. Although the town believes I am possessed by the Devil, I am sided with you all. I have no powers, which is good.

Do you not think "the town believes I am possessed by the Devil" might be interpreted as hinting you are a miller?

[ortolan]

err wut?

What of my points were wrong?

You may have been successful in reducing some of my points to subjectivity e.g. arguing that it is acceptable to vote a town player who is being unhelpful (although I still disagree, and think this is bad town play in and of itself and/or scummy), but in no way have you demonstrated any of my points were "glaringly wrong" in any way whatsoever.

[ortolan]

Post 456:

While I do find Mizzy somewhat suspicious, some of these attacks are just wrong. First Mizzy has explained in the past that the vote on Ramus stayed on Ramus due to his actions/reactions after the initial vote. The inconsistancy thing is off.

0

That actually wasn't the argument. It was that if she thought Ramus suspicious and worthy of a vote (which could be through either his reasons for his initial vote or his actions/reactions afterwards) then she should have found Axelrod equally suspicious when he replaced in. She didn't, which implies her reasons for voting Ramus were based on opportunistic wagoning. She claims that one can vote for a townie for "bad play", explaining why she was voting for Ramus but not Axelrod (apparently she thought Ramus was playing badly but not scum?). I claim in contrast that voting for a townie for "playing badly" is in itself either bad townie play or scummy, and I'm more inclined to think the latter in her case. When you say "some of these attacks are just wrong", were there any other that you disagree with, because the one you've quoted here as an example you actually misinterpreted.

And Mizzy, for someone who earlier accused me of being "over-defensive", you seem to be getting very defensive over me placing *one* vote on you, with no-one else suggesting an inclination to join your wagon yet. Why is one vote of such concern to you?

On another point: I don't think you ever gave a good answer as to why you thought CR's question about Ramus' play was addressed specifically to me.

[ortolan]

Is it strawmanning if what I say is true? I keep challenging him to update his case with the new information that he asked for and that I gave, and he hasn't done that. Most of his points "against" me weren't even scummy things or "inconsistencies" at all.

Actually it's because I actively had to seek out further replies to most of my arguments in Post 456. Remember, when I actually made it you said in Post 459:

And you know what, I'm just going to stop answering the load of bull your entire post is. You completely manipulated what I said and instead of asking for reasoning or explanations for my actions, you write them up to suit your own "case." You not only failed to mention or address that I admitted that I had misread your post in which you claimed, but now you are using that against me as if I hadn't misread your post.

Most of the post you made about me simply lists things I did, and then the rest of it misrepresents things I said into things you are trying to say I did and only the end of it really explains why any of it MIGHT be scummy. The only real point you have against me is completely rendered useless due to the fact that my suspicion of you was based on a misread, which I admitted to, and so really, your case is a big fat load of nothing. Good job.

I will consider responding to the rest of that "case" once you re-write and re-think what you have there.

So your original "reply" to my case consisted of ignoring it and pretending it was based on nothing, which is why you're only now answering some of my arguments.

[ortolan]

What I am calling for you to do is go through your case and, point by point, update it with the information you have now. Most of your points you called inconsistencies, which they weren't, and they weren't even scummy actions and those things should be marked accordingly. The couple of potentially questionable things you had listed there I have answered to and explained why you have them incorrect or that things were misrepresented.

Why not just go through and update the case? Do you have a reason why you won't? I don't care if you keep your vote on me or not, but what I am interested in seeing is if you keeping asserting that the case you have is any good and even whether or not you can even acknowledge that one of the points was a direct result of a mistake on my part that I corrected and took responsibility for. It feels like you are voting me on an emotional case when that's not the best thing in the world at all for any one pro-town to do and if you can show me that you have a decent reason to be tunnel-visioned on me, then I will shut up and let it go.

This is just rubbish and you tried to claim I did the same thing to CR on day one. Here's what happens:

- I make lengthy post with evidence you're scum (456).

- You refuse to answer most of it (459):

And you know what, I'm just going to stop answering the load of bull your entire post is. You completely manipulated what I said and instead of asking for reasoning or explanations for my actions, you write them up to suit your own "case." You not only failed to mention or address that I admitted that I had misread your post in which you claimed, but now you are using that against me as if I hadn't misread your post.

- I spend most of my time wringing answers out of you because you've failed to answer the case properly in the first place.

- You then claim my case was weak to begin with, because you've forced me to isolate my points, because you refused to answer them when they were presented together. Great tactic! Pity it's blatantly obvious what you're doing.

But for the record, I will revisit it (pretty much all the points still stand to me) just to prove to everyone why you're scum.

[ortolan]

Votes Ramus for self-voting. She mainly pursued him day one while also defending CR. This was apparently a "policy" vote, though, as she has not pursued Ramus' successor.

You've claimed this is subjective, the point still stands in my mind.

Post 73 criticises the wagon on CR without giving reasons.

No, I said, "...so far I don't see the wagon on Clock..." which is not criticism, merely a disagreement.

They're the same thing in mafia. There's no point expressing an attitude without a reason behind it. What was the reason?

Post 99 uses CC's Post 95 criticism of urielzyx's Post 94 "WIFOM" again to defend ClockworkRuse.

Again, how is this an inconsistency or scummy?

urielzyx in Post 94 presented a perfectly valid theory about how scum might behave, CC dismissed this as WIFOM and you just parroted what he said about it, even though speculating about scum behaviour is reasonable and inevitable, and uriel's comment wasn't particularly WIFOM-laced but more common sense.

Post 158 I find extremely questionable:

EVEN APART FROM THIS, there is nothing inherently scummy about an OMGUS vote ANYWAY, so this argument has absolutely no substance.

Actually, I don't agree fully with this sentiment; I feel that an OMGUS vote is scummy because it is an easy vote to make that doesn't take thought, doesn't utilize logic or a case, and in general, is anti-town. Anti-town != scum, but it does = scum

my

.

This OMGUS accusation is true garbage. Firstly it has never been established that an OMGUS vote is scummy- in the archetypal case of OMGUS I believe the person who committed it wasn't even scum. So I don't know where you get the idea that it's a scumtell from. Here also you exhibit a clear knowledge of the distinction between "anti-town" and "scummy" behaviour, which makes your excuse of your behaviour re: Ramus/Axelrod completely implausible. The second point, which is really why your accusation was so laughable, was that you clearly state

OMGUS vote is scummy because it is an easy vote to make that doesn't take thought, doesn't utilize logic or a case, and in general, is anti-town.

Clearly my attack on CR didn't even fall under _your_ definition of an OMGUS vote anyway, let alone mine, because you say it is a vote which "doesn't utilize logic or a case", whereas my vote on CR was blatantly supported by both. You didn't really think through that attempt to attack me there, did you?

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

You never gave an explanation for why you made this blatantly untrue statement. How had I not justified my attack on CR in its own light?

You've never answered why you wanted me to address CR's open question.

Of the other two points:

You've claimed re: not continuing your vote onto Axelrod from Ramus that apparently you vote based on "anti-town" play rather than scummy (and don't pretend you don't distinguish the two, as I showed above). I think this is a terrible approach to playing as town and hard to excuse, and points to you being scum.

I will leave the point about you suspecting me for effectively hammering Natirasha even though it complied with your agenda, as you seem to have already acknowledged your point here was rubbish.

So thankyou, by making me revisit my case you've caused me to re-realise that it's still rock solid. When you reply please address all points rather than just two and then claim I don't have a case.

[ortolan]

You've claimed this is subjective, the point still stands in my mind.

The moon can be made of green cheese in your mind, but it doesn't mean that reality and the inside of your mind match up.

Well, actually, the only outside input we've had on the case so far has been from ThAdmiral, who said in Post 749:

But if that's your playstyle I think that makes you a "bad townie".
Also you're sort of strawmanning his case against you.

He is agreeing with me that voting for someone who makes anti-town moves, while not believing they are actually scum, is scummy (or bad town play). So so far the weight of opinion stands against you.

They're the same thing in mafia. There's no point expressing an attitude without a reason behind it. What was the reason?

No, they most certainly are not the same thing, and in mafia, it's the subtle differences that count. As for my reason, I was not being very active at that point and I wanted to chime in about what was going on. You know, like a player should?

Assuming you had genuine motivations for trying to stop the wagon on CR, you should have had a reason for your statement that "so far I don't see the wagon on Clock...". I ask again, what was it? What didn't you like about the wagon?

urielzyx in Post 94 presented a perfectly valid theory about how scum might behave, CC dismissed this as WIFOM and you just parroted what he said about it, even though speculating about scum behaviour is reasonable and inevitable, and uriel's comment wasn't particularly WIFOM-laced but more common sense.

That's neither inconsistent or scummy. I can agree with someone's sentiments, regardless of what those sentiments are. And besides, you seem to be forgetting my entire explanation of why I thought the WIFOM you presented at that point was reason for suspicion. I had my own thoughts on the subject and shared them.

I don't think you've even been reading properly because this didn't even concern anything

I

had said. urielzyx was pointing out (as did several others) that it looked like CR was deliberately avoiding the Ramus wagon because joining it at that stage would look scummy, so instead diverted his attention to me. Here you just parroted CC writing this explanation off as "WIFOM" in order to use it as a criticism of urielzyx.

This OMGUS accusation is true garbage. Firstly it has never been established that an OMGUS vote is scummy- in the archetypal case of OMGUS I believe the person who committed it wasn't even scum. So I don't know where you get the idea that it's a scumtell from. Here also you exhibit a clear knowledge of the distinction between "anti-town" and "scummy" behaviour, which makes your excuse of your behaviour re: Ramus/Axelrod completely implausible. The second point, which is really why your accusation was so laughable, was that you clearly state

Look at you, going off on a complete tangent again. You have very high entertainment value, you know

Firstly, I explained why OMGUS votes should not be made and why I feel they are scummy. You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but I never said they were a foolproof scumtell, anyway.

You accused me of making an OMGUS vote. You acknowledge that an OMGUS vote is one which "doesn't utilize logic or a case". My vote clearly was backed up by logic and a case. See posts 113, 136, 138, 153 etc. Thus your "OMGUS" accusation was total rubbish, and not a scum-tell anyway, as I was at pains to point out on day one.

Why does it make my behavior implausible? Use real facts, please, not the in-your-mind ones.

Because it shows you distinguish between "anti-town" and "scummy", but claim not to in voting.

Clearly my attack on CR didn't even fall under _your_ definition of an OMGUS vote anyway, let alone mine, because you say it is a vote which "doesn't utilize logic or a case", whereas my vote on CR was blatantly supported by both. You didn't really think through that attempt to attack me there, did you?

Considering that I am not you, I have no way of knowing whether or not your OMGUS vote was anything more than OMGUS. I have to make my decisions based on what I read and how I feel about what I read. And from what I saw, and see now, your play is very emotion-based and not so heavy on the logic. I still feel that CR attack was more OMGUS than anything else.

See above.

You've never answered why you wanted me to address CR's open question.

Yes, I did.

Would you indulge me and do so again please?

You've claimed re: not continuing your vote onto Axelrod from Ramus that apparently you vote based on "anti-town" play rather than scummy (and don't pretend you don't distinguish the two, as I showed above). I think this is a terrible approach to playing as town and hard to excuse, and points to you being scum.

You do realize that something that goes against your opinion isn't inherently scummy, right? The play mentioned above is one that I have done before as town in other games. It's how I play. You can think that points to me being scum all you want, but really, you don't care as long as you get to be "right".

Honestly, this whole thing is laughable, and as much as I want to feel otherwise, I can only see you as useless-town.

Well if you act in a way I find scummy you can expect me to vote for you. And unfortunately I can't reciprocate your town verdict on me, I fail to see town motivation for the way you've played.

[ortolan]

tbh, I'm not that sure how to interpret it and/or how useful it is

[ortolan]

I'm not really sure that helps us if only "at least one of them are scum"- if you took any random 4 players in the game then on average one would be scum anyhow.

If some of those players get eliminated through lynches/nightkills later it will be easier to narrow it down, but I'm not sure this method is foolproof anyway.

[ortolan]

Well, of course the method isn't foolproof, but what method is?

Well what method are you actually suggesting we should use then? Just find the scummiest of those four and lynch them?

[ortolan]

So basically you're saying (like I did) that the vote analysis has no real effect

[ortolan]

Mod: are we allowed an extension?

The only viable (i.e. has enough votes) lynch atm is CarnCarn, and I'll have to re-read to decide whether it's worthwhile. Plus he's going away until a day before the deadline.

Does no-one else find Mizzy scummy? Surely there's a good chance that one of us is scum, considering how at-each-other's-throats we've been all game?

[ortolan]

The deadline is fast approaching.

@ MM, ort and ThAd

- Do you think the people you're voting for are going to get lynched today? We need 4 votes to lynch by deadline, no wagon has reached this and you're the only ones voting on your respective wagons.

Since no one really responded to my case then I don't think so.
I will consider moving my vote.

Same with me. I'm deciding whether I find destructor or CarnCarn scummier and will post soon.

[ortolan]

ok, I'm gonna ask some questions first.

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

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

I have my reasons for these (not just because I want to tunnel on Mizzy )

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).

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. Notably also the rules specifically state that cops in the game may either be sane or insane. This seems like the sort of thing scum would look at at the beginning of the game and think "ok well if any cop claims a guilty on me I will just suggest they are insane". Why did you pre-emptively suggest he was a cop with a sanity issue?

Another question for CC: do you still find Urza town? Here's an excerpt from post 483 (you had a lot more to say about urza there but it's too long to quote):

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.

By Post 536 you're take a conciliatory attitude to urza/TSQ:

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

.

So, I understand now you find urza's recent play indicative of being townie even though you thought both he and his predecessor were scum previously (and you said Caboose had been very lurky/non-contributive). 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?

[ortolan]

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

and Caboose was scummy mostly for bouts of lurking while active in other games.

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

[ortolan]

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.

[ortolan]

btw, neither CR or MM have posted anything substantial in _ages_

I am really curious as to who you would each like lynched. CR you don't seem to have posted much at all of substance today.

I think I know who I'm voting for but I want some more responses first.

[ortolan]

also; I would specifically like to hear from you two who you think is scummier out of destructor/CarnCarn, even if you end up voting for someone else.

[ortolan]

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

Well, I haven't seen you explicitly state that urza's actions made you change your opinion of his predecessor.

You attacking Caboose Day 1 (although he retaliated, also), then when his successor replaced in you assuming he had a guilty on you, then you withdrawing your case/vote on him based on rather weak reasoning that his "line of questioning and subsequent posts strike me as pretty protown":

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

.

Finally, you switch over to destructor based mainly on the fact he is attacking you, and also pander to someone you've now totally changed your tune on, urza, to try to help your case against destructor:

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

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?

I didn't want to vote for you and make you lynchable without hearing as many people's opinions as possible. That said it's the 11th in Australian time now, so I will.

Vote: CarnCarn

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

[ortolan]

just making the point that I believe the deadline is around tomorrow morning my time, at which point I may or may not get the chance to read the thread before going to work, and assuming most of you are Americans or in similar timezones where the majority of discussion will take place while I'm asleep, I thus may not get the chance to revise my opinions/vote in response to new posts. That was the main reason for asking for a roleclaim now rather than *just before* the deadline.

What's your avatar btw, CC?

[ortolan]

lol. I roleblocked Mizzy last night.

Vote: Mizzy

Of course I understand it's equally possible that I am mafia and deliberately submitted a no kill to frame Mizzy, so you have no reason to believe me for this alone.

[ortolan]

Yes, please do not quicklynch, I have more to say but I want Mizzy to reply first.

[ortolan]

Unvote

Please do *not* quicklynch. I want Mizzy to reply, then I will go from there.

[ortolan]

Also, I find it suspicious Ort has called Mizzy out. There are a few reasons for a lack of a NK. There is a possibility of a successful doc protection according to the rules. I would think you would have thought of this instead of A) Outing yourself as roleblocker, B) Potentionally taking us to LyLo with you as a lead canidate for lynch if Mizzy is actually town.

First of all, as has already been pointed out, I claimed at the start of day two. Secondly, I already realised this. I was hoping Mizzy would respond in a way that guaranteed I'd hit the right target and she was scum. She hasn't.

And, yes, there are *multiple* other suggestions for why the kill might not have gone through.

There's that I role-blocked Mizzy who was the mafia player meant to kill that night.

Scum might deliberately have submitted no-kill. I see this as unlikely but not impossible. This would work either way with me being town or scum- I might have deliberately not put in a kill to frame Mizzy, or scum might deliberately not have put in a kill so that I got a fake result. I honestly wouldn't think this to be particularly likely though, I would think scum would want to take advantage of every night-kill they can get. But it is something to consider.

Or; there is a doctor who protected whoever the intended kill target was.

We don't know which of these is the case.

Urza is scummy as all hell in light of this.

First he says:

Guys, this is really simple.

We lynch mizzy and then tomorrow if she's town we lynch orto.

come the fuck on.

If for example, either of my second or third explanations are true, then in fact both Mizzy and I are town and this would GUARANTEE a mafia win from two more mislynches.

Then he also rolefishes for the doctor:

then perhaps it's time for a mass claim to determine if there's any other explanation for what happened?

Vote: Urzassedatives

[ortolan]

Orto, are you effing kidding me? You get a no kill on the night that you RB someone and you don't want to lynch them? You want to lynch someone completely different?

Are you kidding me?

There are possibilities that make it POSSIBLE that Mizzy is town, but they are extremely unlikely. I just can't fathom how a RB would have a block on a night there was no kill and not go after that person? And not even wagon that person. What the hell? Do you have any clue how to play mafia? Are you a fucking idiot?

lol. I was more than happy to wagon Mizzy. Then you made Post 650, where you suggest we should lynch Mizzy and if she flips town, me also. If, as you say, you've found me pro-town all game, I don't know why you'd even be speculating that I was lying. It also happened to be perfectly consistent with the idea that scum tried to set me up. If this is the case you're guaranteeing your win by setting up Mizzy to be lynched, and then me. This is aside from the possibility of a doctor in the setup.

I highly doubt they would. With three scum still around they would have left themselves open to a high chance of one of them being blocked anyway and then winding up on the chopping block. In fact it works out to actually be less likely for them to be "caught" if they did kill (1/9 - since only one of them would have sent the kill in) than if they didn't! (3/9).

I don't think so, it probably wasn't that hard for scum to guess whom I would target. I almost chose another target to Mizzy because of similar WIFOM-related reasons.

[ortolan]

Battousai you seem a reasonable choice for towniest (think it's redundant in my case but hey)

MM and Korejora do you have anything to say? MM expressed a desire against a mass-claim but not much else, Korejora did some maths on roles/actions but I'm not sure of her position on a Mizzy or alternative lynch at this stage. At least please comply with Batt's softclaim request of your towniest (to both of you).

[ortolan]

Could you be more specific regarding Urza? "Screaming scum" is a little too vague for me to work with. Even if you think it's obvious, I feel like it would help to have it on record so your unspoken opinion doesn't get second-guessed and therefore possibly manipulated by the mafia. Also, does anyone other than Battousai have your blessing?

I'd like to hear the answer to this too, could be very useful.

[ortolan]

I believe that means there is an equal chance that Battousai/Axelrod are town or that Mizzy is scum. (assuming discounting that scum could have deliberately submitted no-kill).

Just want to bring up a note on Ort. His goal, after knowing there was a correct doc/roleblock could have been to out the rb/doc.

Yes, the whole thing was an elaborate ruse to out the rb/doc even though I am the roleblocker and I claimed at the start of day two (although apparently neither you nor Mizzy noticed this???)

[ortolan]

Well, one of us is lying.

FYI It was already obvious to me that Mizzy was going to claim vig, had she said anything else I would have voted for her immediately.

She said she hadn't used her ability to date (I believe, I can't find the post now but I'm sure she did), which meant she obviously wasn't cop/doctor or even another roleblocker

I believe the following will necessarily result in a scum-lynch by LYOL (I don't see how today can be LYOL):

Lynch Mizzy today

If Mizzy flips town, destructor is scum, lynch tomorrow- Battousai/Axelrod are cleared.

If Mizzy flips scum, then Battousai protects destructor

If destructor dies overnight, Battousai is scum

If destructor doesn't die then he will have investigated someone else.

Either way I believe we have dead scum either today or tomorrow. What are opinions of the plan?

[ortolan]

What a desperate bid to get me lynched. And you know why? Because with my help, town could win in ONE NIGHT.

What? How?

[ortolan]

About your first point: taken, but I'd like to see you do one of your probability calculations for whether there is a scum roleblocker (you can do it either if there's an additional scum role-blocker or if I'm the scum roleblocker and I lied about using my roleblocks )

Your second point is an issue regardless of whom we lynch, is it not? The only way to overcome it is to no-lynch.

[ortolan]

Let's see what destructor has to say.

[ortolan]

Is anyone else glad mizzy is dead anyway, regardless?

LOL

[ortolan]

destructor's claim is still plausible to me.

It has to be said though- if he is telling the truth then Mizzy was the traitor, which means we're already down to 2 scum. Which means if we mislynch destructor we will still have another day. If we lynch ThAdmiral then we might just be handing the win to scum. There's also the fact I haven't found ThAdmiral particularly scummy all game (despite what others have said)- his lurky minimal posting is the same as what I saw in assassin in the hospital when he was town, and I haven't disagreed with most of his positions IIRC.

So I think a destructor lynch is the safest option.

While that looks good for me and all, it actually puts Ort. back into play as possible scum. It would have been quite the gambit for him to come out against Mizzy the way he did, however, if he were scum just trying to buss somebody - without knowledge that Destructor was going to claim a Cop result? Really, he'd only even possibly do this if him and Destructor were a team, I'm thinking.

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying I was trying to bus Mizzy or destructor? I didn't attack destructor and I don't see what possible motivation I could have for "busing" Mizzy if she was the traitor and I was mafia.

[ortolan]

I think the reward from nailing ThAdmiral-scum is much greater than the small risk of destructor-scum, so

Vote: ThAdmiral

You'd better come up with something better than that if you expect us lynch him and potentially throw away the game.

I'm thinking now that mm has to be scum with destructor.

It's looking increasingly likely.

[ortolan]

I don't get what Urza's doing.

Agreed, he is still a very good contender for scum regardless of whether you're lying or not. His acting all "frustrated with himself" isn't helping anyone, least of all himself look town.

[ortolan]

I have zero problems with a mass flavour claim. Is there any reason why we shouldn't?

[ortolan]

can you be more detailed? What's the pendant for?

[ortolan]

I also want Urza to claim his favour, and don't see any harm in Axelrod doing so either.

[ortolan]

Sorry- MM too, I forgot about him.

[ortolan]

ah right yer I thought it sounded familiar and was probably "penchant" rather than "pendant" (the role pm is in the rules section). Interesting.

[ortolan]

Urza, Axelrod?

[ortolan]

well I don't recall having found ThAdmiral particularly scummy all game, he perhaps has posted somewhat minimally though.

But I feel the same way about destructor- from day two onwards I've found him aggressive but not particularly scummy, and his claim does explain his approach to CarnCarn

Were it not for the situation that one or the other has to be scum, I'd probably be voting Urza, and as I said I think he's a likely scumbuddy for EITHER of them.

But destructor is the safest lynch- if he is town then Mizzy was the traitor, in which case there's only 2 scum left and we can afford a mislynch. The problem is if destructor flips town- is he actually town or the traitor? His claim as far as I can see is a good gambit by the traitor, which would give away the identity of the traitor to the scum (claiming a false "guilty" on an innocent). So even if destructor flips "town" we cannot actually be sure ThAdmiral is scum.

[ortolan]

wow, that's really, really unconvincing- looks like you were hoping someone would hammer ThAdmiral before you unvoted

Does anyone have any objections to me hammering destructor?

[ortolan]

*he's only on L-2

Vote: destructor

[ortolan]

Aren't we highly, highly likely to be in LYOL regardless of what he flips?

In which case that attitude makes no sense if you're town...

[ortolan]

You know what, same

Unvote
Vote: ThAdmiral

[ortolan]

it's a gambit, but town has very little chance of winning at this point anyhow.

[ortolan]

I don't understand your question at all kore? I don't see any way you can be scum ruling out bastard modding. Plus your contributions recently haven't been at all scummy.

I'm highly surprised scum hasn't won already, but evidently the traitor has been lynched or night-killed. On a whim I would guess CarnCarn or Mizzy, but I may be wrong

In retrospect my rationale for voting ThAdmiral was kind of retarded- Urza looked like obv-scum to me and rather than opt for the obvious destructor-MM scumpair (I thought MM's support was too unashamed to actually be a scumbuddy), I thought Urza was trying to bus his scumbuddy, ThAdmiral in the hopes that destructor would be lynched as town anyway (which was, theoretically speaking, the safest town move), and then, while ThAdmiral would be caught, Urza could say "I believed destructor's claim all along".

However destructor cannot be telling the truth at this point- as an insane cop he's claimed innocent results (which means they're guilty) on both Mizzy and ThAdmiral, and only one can be the traitor (if either are), which means his claim cannot be true, and he is scum.

Who do you think the second scum is after destructor Urza?

[ortolan]

Well, if you were town, then yes, we are. But you're not.

Vote: destructor

[ortolan]

trick question???

at present there's no way I'm going to vote MM over you.

Should you be town, would you care to list you who you think is scum out of myself/MM and why?

[ortolan]

That's not going to help your case, in my experience if someone tells/asks you to lynch them your best bet is to comply.

[ortolan]

Well this endgame is going to be interesting...

I'm waiting for Mr. MM to make an appearance

[ortolan]

TSQ; do you have a reply?

Both MM and I are going to vote you as it is

[ortolan]

Vote: Thestatusquo

[ortolan]

good game. Kind of dissapointing that you threw away the end-game like that, but I'm still confused as to whether you could have even won?

MM- were you the traitor, or not?

[ortolan]

if not then me and destructor spend the whole time from night 2 onwards thinking you were the traitor, lol

If it wasn't you it would have been CarnCarn.

[ortolan]

Yer I toyed with the idea of leaving kore alive, but no way was I going to kill MM either way cause I thought he was the traitor so if I didn't kill her it would have been you instead.

[ortolan]

no way Mizzy was the traitor, ironically Mizzy actually picked both of us at various stages, but I pretty much counter-attacked her so hard I convinced her I, at least, were town.

[ortolan]

I thought so too, but when I asked pj for clarification on how it worked the answers were kind of ambiguous. But even according to what he told me I would have thought if MM were the traitor, today at least never could have happened, even if yesterday did.

[ortolan]

I thought CarnCarn was the traitor because just before he got lynched he said "even though destructor is attacking me I don't think he's scummy for it", took his vote off and said I think Urza/ThAdmiral were scummy and voted one of them. I thought as the traitor he was trying to use the town cred he's get on his flip to direct suspicion away from destructor. I was surprised no-one else picked up on it actually cause it looked like a traitory move- especially because he'd previously been attacking destructor quite fervently, yet he suddenly changed his mind.

The other thing was that while he attacked those two who'd been on his wagon, he didn't even mention me, although I'd also been on his wagon.

But we shall find out soon.

[ortolan]

lol

oh well

[ortolan]

I claimed RB before that, because I thought it fitted into my role-claim/made it more convincing.

The reason I claimed a block on Mizzy was that I put through the kill on Axelrod and it didn't go through, so I got paranoid that I myself had been role-blocked that night and someone knew I was likely scum. I claimed to have RB'ed Mizzy because it was consistent with what I'd do after attacking her on Day 2, and if there was another explanation e.g. doctor protect for the no night-kill it was compatible with that too.

So basically it made it likely that even if I had been caught I'd have a good chance of getting at least one more town lynch in before being lynched. destructor had discussed that insane cop role-claim the day before but I was surprised he ended up following through with it after there'd already been a no-kill the previous night and I'd put myself in the firing line by claiming to have RB'ed Mizzy. It worked though- we got two more town lynches before he was lynched.

It's funny, actually, I read MM's comment at that point along the lines of "destructor has played a masterful game up until this point, but it ends here" as looking

extremely

traitory.

Anyway, we didn't realise how hard a time we were going to have all game after I effectively hammered Natirasha.

pj, did you put in La Esmeralda's goat specifically to interact with the scum fake-claim? i.e. was it put in for the purpose of me doing what I did with it essentially? It's the only non vanilla townie without a role. I realise CR/korejora probably would have been extremely unlikely to vote for me from day 2 onwards with that role pm and my fake-claim.

[ortolan]

probably because e.g. mine was "we must play the devil with them", which is extremely scummy.

It probably wouldn't have mattered though, I would have just looked up an alternate obscure one which no-one else was likely to have.

[ortolan]

and if destructor doesn't mind I will post the qt

[ortolan]

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