Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[Huntress]

Tom Mason

-post 546 Is that a reason to vote DoomCow then?
-post 597 I don’t expect everybody to always be ready to give opinion on everything but when they do it makes them look more townish. I don’t know why I’m alone on my suspicions of you. Saying I’m wrong doesn’t change my opinion but I’m seeing both good and bad things from you so maybe I’m only half the time wrong.

You're not alone . I mentioned my suspicion of him at the end of post 568. He is probably my second highest suspect at the moment.

[Tarhalindur]

Since I seem to be at L-1... policy is clear enough.

I am a Jack of All Trades. I have four 1-shot special abilities, which can be summarized as follows: Cop, Doc (can self-protect), Vig, and Roleblock.

Doomcow used the cop on Tom Mason N1 (Innocent) and vigged Scheherazade N2.

[Tom Mason]

Tom Mason

-post 546 Is that a reason to vote DoomCow then?

No, it was my short way of saying "I hope this is not going to quickly turn into a game of everyone unvote one person and turn on the second."

It worked in our favor last time, yes. But how often do you see it being positive in the long term?

-post 597 I don’t expect everybody to always be ready to give opinion on everything but when they do it makes them look more townish. I don’t know why I’m alone on my suspicions of you. Saying I’m wrong doesn’t change my opinion but I’m seeing both good and bad things from you so maybe I’m only half the time wrong.

That is junk. Just because someone is willing to state that they agree/disagree with something said does not "make them look more town." Everyone can have an opinion and voice it when they want, and opinions in their own are not wrong -- but when they lack evidence and factual basis, they are wrong.

I believe Tarhalindur's role claim at this point. Highly doubt that he is going to be challenged on it. As for you, Jahudo -- anyone can claim vanilla townie. There are likely to be a number of them in this game, myself included. So, to challenge you is equally as difficult -- but I would much prefer to take my chances lynching you at the moment.

Unless there is a much better idea proposed.

[OhGodMyLife]

Fifth Vote Count of Day 3

Jahudo (4) -- Tom Mason, Vi, Caboose, Tarhalindur
Tarhalindur (4) -- iamausername, Jazzmyn, Huntress, Jahudo

Not Voting (1) -- ZazieR

With 9 alive, it takes 5 votes to lynch!

[Jahudo]

I'm interested in how everyone feels about a massclaim at this point, either before or after we find out if there's a vig counter-claim for Scheh's death. 6:2:1 with a spent 1-shot vig changes my opinion because it would likely mean LyLo is tomorrow at the worst. If that's the general feeling, then tomorrow is probably a better time for a massclaim.

Just because someone is willing to state that they agree/disagree with something said does not "make them look more town."

I disagree. I believe that scum have a harder time forming genuine opinions and following by them because they are detached from the town goal.

He is probably my second highest suspect at the moment.

I'm interested in your read now that Tar is calling Tom cleared. I actually think this makes Tom more likely town either way, since it's a big risk for scum to fake clear fellow scum.

Doomcow used the cop on Tom Mason N1 (Innocent) and vigged Scheherazade N2.

That doesn't make the greatest sense to me. Scheh was clearly his number 1 suspect so I don't know why he didn't cop investigate or vig Scheh night 1.

I can understand not having a good read on Tom Mason since he replaced late in the day and his predecessor said nothing at all, but Tom was more of a neutral read at worse so I can't understand why Doom wouldn't want to clear up al4xz, who he was suspicious of during twilight "but not enough for a vote" or Juls who did things to "spark his attention" but not enough to post about.

Still, this is a hard claim to fake without a counter-claim on the vig.

This explains the third NK in night 2 but not the third NK in night 0, which now looks like the Weak Doctor protected scum and died. Which also would assume that Night 1 had no successful RB/Protection because only 2 shots were fired.

unvote

while I reread DoomCow for any clues.

[Jazzmyn]

Doomcow used the cop on Tom Mason N1 (Innocent) and vigged Scheherazade N2.

I find this very difficult to believe.

While DoomCow barely participated in the game, he did express suspicions of Sche on Day 1, voted for Sche on Day 1, and continued to express suspicion of Sche on Day 2. He never once voiced any suspicion of Tom Mason at all on Day 1 (nor did anyone else). In the circumstances, I find it difficult to comprehend why DoomCow would investigate Tom Mason on Night 1. This looks more to me like a ballsy attempt by scum at L-1 to get out of his dilemma in hopes of living to see another day, while simultaneously either (a) "clearing" TomMason-scum or (b) implicating TomMason-town as scum by purporting to clear him.

Either way, though, the claim just doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps once others chime in with their thoughts, I'll change my mind, but at the moment, my vote is staying where it is.

Regards,
Jazz

[iamausername]

Cops should investigate players they have no read on, not players they (and a whole lot of others, to boot) already find suspicious. Of course, whether or not DoomCow subscribes to that particular philosophy is another matter.

That's not the biggest issue I'm seeing with Tar's claim either way. The lack of a N0 action (or any note that none occured) makes me think maybe Tar forgot this was a night start in making up a fake claim. Although, a bit of reverse-Burden-of-Proficiency; Tar is not a player I'd expect to be that sloppy.

I'm still in favour of massclaim. I'm always in favour of massclaim. But unless everybody else is claiming too, no vig should counter Tar if they shot Zade, they should just shoot Tar tonight instead.

[Tarhalindur]

Doomcow used the cop on Tom Mason N1 (Innocent) and vigged Scheherazade N2.

I find this very difficult to believe.

While DoomCow barely participated in the game, he did express suspicions of Sche on Day 1, voted for Sche on Day 1, and continued to express suspicion of Sche on Day 2. He never once voiced any suspicion of Tom Mason at all on Day 1 (nor did anyone else). In the circumstances, I find it difficult to comprehend why DoomCow would investigate Tom Mason on Night 1.

Craplogic. As previously noted by iamausername, Cop should not investigate scummy players unless he's out of unreadables.

This looks more to me like a ballsy attempt by scum at L-1 to get out of his dilemma in hopes of living to see another day, while simultaneously either (a) "clearing" TomMason-scum or (b) implicating TomMason-town as scum by purporting to clear him.

Either way, though, the claim just doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps once others chime in with their thoughts, I'll change my mind, but at the moment, my vote is staying where it is.

Regards,
Jazz

This second paragraph looks scummy as all hell. Note the pushing a wagon in a style I associate with scum while keeping an escape route open ("Perhaps once others chime in with their thoughts, I'll change my mind").

Excuse me while I look over your posts again.

That's not the biggest issue I'm seeing with Tar's claim either way. The lack of a N0 action (or any note that none occured) makes me think maybe Tar forgot this was a night start in making up a fake claim. Although, a bit of reverse-Burden-of-Proficiency; Tar is not a player I'd expect to be that sloppy.

By listing which shots I had used I was implicitly claiming that Doomcow used no actions N0. Poor phrasing, I admit, but not the slip you think it is.

I'm still in favour of massclaim. I'm always in favour of massclaim. But unless everybody else is claiming too, no vig should counter Tar if they shot Zade, they should just shoot Tar tonight instead.

I'm massclaim-amenable myself, but that's because I suck at normal scumhunting and am pretty good at setup analysis.

[Jahudo]

Deadline's coming and we should gives our top lynch choices soon.

I looked back and couldn’t find any breadcrumbs or indication that DoomCow was JOAT or that he knew Tom Mason was town. Tarhalindur explained early on that he felt Tom was reading especially town, which makes sense with his claim.

Tar would have to be killing scum with knowledge to explain the different number of NK’s at night that wouldn’t get him caught by town PR. Tom could be scum with Tar or GF with investigation immunity. Since these seem very unlikely on their own, I don’t think either should be the lynch choice today.

I am also suspicious of Vi, Jazz, and Zaz so I'll look again and see how I'd rank those.

whether or not DoomCow subscribes to that particular philosophy is another matter.

I can understand why someone would target a no read but I would fall into the other philosophy since knowing about Scheh affects his wagon day 2.

The lack of a N0 action (or any note that none occured) makes me think maybe Tar forgot this was a night start in making up a fake claim.

Good catch but I could just as easily accept Doom choosing not to use a role at random.

Either way, though, the claim just doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps once others chime in with their thoughts, I'll change my mind, but at the moment, my vote is staying where it is.

This second paragraph looks scummy as all hell. Note the pushing a wagon in a style I associate with scum while keeping an escape route open

I do not like the vague way of summarizing her opinion of the claim. I can understand wanting others to gives thoughts but that's more for seeing if the others are scummy, not Tar in this case.

[Jazzmyn]

Craplogic. As previously noted by iamausername, Cop should not investigate scummy players unless he's out of unreadables.

That's easy to say, of course, but it is not even remotely universal among players for a Cop to investigate only those whom they have no good read on rather than those whom they have legitimate suspicion about.

In the particular circumstances of this game

, and in light of DoomCow's stated suspicion of Sche on Day 1 and the reality that Sche was going to still be under a cloud of suspicion on Day 2, I find it very difficult to believe that DoomCow would investigate TomMason instead of Sche on Night 1.

I base my thoughts in this game on the circumstances of this particular game, not on a generic strategy that some think a Cop should or should not employ in other games.

This second paragraph looks scummy as all hell. Note the pushing a wagon in a style I associate with scum while keeping an escape route open ("Perhaps once others chime in with their thoughts, I'll change my mind").

Excuse me while I look over your posts again.

Please do look over my posts again. They're all there for anyone to read.

I'm not 'pushing a wagon' at all, nor am I looking for an "escape route". Rather, I am leaving my vote where I cast it back on December 13 because your predecessor was and remains the most suspicious player to me at present. That said, this is my first game of this sort (I've only played in Newbie games prior to starting this game) and I fully recognize that there is much to learn, thus my willingness to do so, and thus my willingness to keep an open mind to the arguments of others, and possibly change my vote accordingly. If you find open-mindedness, a willingness to learn, and a willingness to listen to the arguments of others "scummy," well, there is little I can do about that.

By listing which shots I had used I was implicitly claiming that Doomcow used no actions N0. Poor phrasing, I admit, but not the slip you think it is.

Perhaps. But you were making an explicit role-claim at L-1, and you chose to be explicit about N1 and N2, so it shouldn't come as a great surprise to you that the lack of an explicit claim about N0 looks a bit off.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jahudo]

Jahudo, whose actions are suspect but gave me the impression of scumhunting in my second reread

What actions are you referring to? Were they mine or my predecessors?

So deadline is in 3 days. I can think of plenty of reasons to keep Tar around for night if he's town or scum so I'm going to vote for Vi today. Here's why:

-post 141 – doesn’t think Scheh was being necessarily scummy but also admits to not reading everything, especially the walls of text. Doesn’t refer to anything specific in this post. Doesn’t comment on suspicions of DH.

-post 146 asks why DH is more suspicious than Scheh. Still doesn’t give opinion on DH. This struck me as very scummy because he is not committing himself to an opinion but asking others to reveal theirs.

I’m surprised that by post 331 Vi hasn’t commented on al4xz’s “Are you serious? Shit! Town, sorry!” post 287 and Vi didn’t get a bad vibe from it in his post 290. This was something people were questioning early day 2 but Vi, who was suspicious of al4xz day 1, ignored it at the start of day 2.

-post 389 Agree that nk speculation is filled with WIFOM here. I don’t think DoomCow was using nk speculation to hate Scheh so I don’t know why you grouped other people in with that argument. It looks like slight strawmanning. And I don’t think giving someone ways “to make them look better” is how you counter confirmation bias.

-post 400 In hindsight I don’t like people starting to see pairings in al4xz and Scheh, especially Vi who was against the people bringing up such a pairing in post 389. That suspicion still stands but I know hindsight is affecting how I read zl4xz and Scheh posts.

FoS: Jazzmyn

(and back-up vote for deadline purposes)

Vote: Vi

[Vi]

@Tarhalindur: Could you condense that giant PbPA of ribwich to a sentence or two? I have some ideas of what it would look like, but for the sake of psychology I would like it to come from your text box.

I’m surprised that by post 331 Vi hasn’t commented on al4xz’s “Are you serious? Shit! Town, sorry!” post 287 and Vi didn’t get a bad vibe from it in his post 290. This was something people were questioning early day 2 but Vi, who was suspicious of al4xz day 1, ignored it at the start of day 2.

I saw that the whole dust-up over al4xz's setup speculation was to some degree an overreaction on my part, so some amount of that D1 suspicion had subsided. The expletive-ridden notHammer seemed explicable by al4xz being a newer player and wanting a claim -

if he was Town

; to check on this, I asked him about Scheherazade, since that was where he had jumped from to vote Der Hammer.

In his summary of ima he says he’s ringing up as weird. I think that needs more explanation how these things look scummy to Vi.

The guy basically admitted to lurking through Ds 1 and 2, and tried to push the near-lynch al4xz wagon as Gimbo started to come under fire. He voted Gimbo to L-1 and then almost made a joke of telling people that he was at L-1, presumably to prevent a mislynch (or that's how I interpreted it). It seems mostly self-explanatory.

-post 389 Agree that nk speculation is filled with WIFOM here. I don’t think DoomCow was using nk speculation to hate Scheh so I don’t know why you grouped other people in with that argument. It looks like slight strawmanning. And I don’t think giving someone ways “to make them look better” is how you counter confirmation bias.

You didn't see DoomCow 377?
As far as the last sentence, showing under what circumstances you would reconsider your position on someone would break the idea of "this guy's scum and I'm tuning out other opinions", aka tunneling.

I am, as before, against a massclaim until tomorrow. Giving the scum a Christmas hit-list is just a bad idea. I don't immediately see a reason to disbelieve Tarhalindur's claim, since I believe Tom Mason is Town and the vig claim makes sense. iaun's objection in 606 is faulty since I think it's considerably more likely that DoomCow would miss N0; and he was, y'know, the person playing back then.

Re: Investigating Tom Mason - I am against anyone imposing strategic plans on someone who can no longer explain themselves. If DoomCow were here, we could very well ask him why he chose to act as he did, and his reason may well be kosher. The fact is,

we don't know

.

----

For Jahudo, my top three.

*Jahudo/Gerrendus. Your walls reflect well on you, but you are still responsible for Gerrendus's activities. Your reasons for voting me are all c/pd from before, and I think I've answered most of them already (granted, some of those answers are in this post). I'm not uncomfortable with my vote on you.

*Jazzmyn. I'm not convinced by her jump onto the Scheherazade wagon D1, but what bothers me more is that outside beating Scheherazade around, she hasn't said much at all. I don't like how she's trying to discredit Cowhalindoom for investigating Tom Mason N1; already referenced above. And rereading today, I don't know where Jazzmyn stands on anyone except DoomCow. It seems like Jazz is going under the radar, and I don't like it.

*iamausername. I've already talked about him in this post. His activity D3 seems neutral to me.

[Caboose]

:O

Looks like Santa left some more postzillas in this thread for me to read.

With regards to Tar's claim, I have the same concern that IAUN has about the no-action N0.

[Vi]

Your "reading, will reply later" factor is spiking.

[Huntress]

I haven't been able to look at this since my last post but I hope to get down to it tomorrow. Due to the deadline this game will have priority for the moment.

[Tarhalindur]

PBPA, Jazzmyn

I have left a few posts off. Those posts which I have left off were those which I considered largely irrelevant to any case against Jazzmyn.

First things first, I'm going to

Unvote

because my vote against ribwich was purely a random vote.

I am not quite sure what to make of the Scheherazade/Percy dust-up or the odd posts by Der Hammer, so I will have to re-read more closely in order to refine my thoughts on which player seems scummiest at this point, but so far, it appears to me that there are legitimate reasons for the suspicions leveled and votes against Scheherazade and Der Hammer.

Regards,
Jazz

While it's not necessarily anti-town to delay, the phrasing here makes me wonder if Jazzmyn was trying to play both the Scheherazade and Der Hammer wagons here (which is a very strong scumtell).

I've re-read all of the posts more closely, and come to the conclusion that the best place for my vote at this time is on Scheherazade.

I admit that I am influenced in this decision by the arrogance, rudeness and condescension in his posts but those factors do make me more suspicious of a player who has already behaved suspiciously.

In my view, if his initial game set up/rolefishing post was an innocent error, it would have been a simple matter to just say so and move on, rather than spending an inordinate amount of time and space arguing semantics, insulting other players, and posting links to a dictionary and to a logical fallacy site.

In other words, it is not the initial sin that bothers me as much as the follow up.

Vote: Scheherazade

Regards,
Jazz

Why did this bother you? More importantly, why did Scheherazade's actions make him more likely to be scum (the paradigm in which all player actions must be assessed)?

I know what sort of person Percy is. Arguing with him is going to waste town time. It's going to be more effective to defend myself against reasonable players who hold their own positions than against him. With the votes-to-lynch so high, I feel that I can do that if I need to, when the time comes.

This ad hom on Percy really, really, really pisses me off.

@Caboose:
That's not ad hominem.

Oh, yes, it is.

You, Scheherazade, have made an argument against the character of a person rather than against the argument. An ad hominen argument generally takes the form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on Person A.
Person B claims that, therefore, Person A's argument is false/should be disregarded.

You have done precisely this when you claimed that "I know what kind of person Percy is" and then suggested that Percy's arguments should be disregarded on that basis.

Classic ad hom.

Regards,
Jazz

Technically correct. Also offers litte real insight into who Jazzmyn thinks is scum (it does imply that Scheherezade is a higher priority than Der Hammer).

First, my suspicions about Sche have not been alleviated and I see no reason to change my vote at this time.

Regarding Percy, it is possible that he was rabble rousing against Sche but I happen to agree with him about Sche
and I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy. I am not, however, enamoured
of his playing the newbie card in a couple of his posts.

Regarding DerHammer, I don't find him particularly suspicious. Some have found his saying, "good start with the
scum being killed" as scummy but it didn't strike me that way, and I understood his "sarcasm" post, but I do think
he over-reacted to strife's post asking for people's opinions on the top 3 vote getters, and I don't like his early vanilla claim.

Ribwich is pinging my scumdar a bit for his vote hopping, and his discussion of setup long after it ought to have ceased.

Finally, there is something still tickling the back of my brain regarding the odd interplay between Juls and al4x back when al4x
said he was deliberately acting scummy to get a reaction from her, but it is a mere tickle.

Regards,
Jazz

EBWOP: On "preview", I see that DerHammer has voted for Sche for a dubious reason, so that consideration must be added to
what I wrote above.

I don't like this overview post. Note how Jazzmyn leaves herself a way to come back later to each player she finds townish, and the comments on two other players without following them up - this could easily be Jazzmyn painting suspicion on townies (in case she needs to try to get them lynched later) while keeping plausible deniability.

Also note how Jazzmyn refers to DerHammer voting for Scheherazade "for a dubious reason", without elaborating. This will be important later.

Awesome, a choice between useless and more useless.

Sadly, I cannot disagree with that.

Where we

may

disagree is about which one is more useless, and it is entirely possible that I am allowing my disdain for Sche's rude, obnoxious, condescending play style to cloud my judgement in this regard. Yet, I still get more of a scum-vibe from Sche than I do from DerHammer, so I feel compelled to leave my vote where it is at present.

Regards,
Jazz

Why did you still get more of a scum-vibe from Scheherazade? Note how little Jazzmyn has explained of why she suspected Scheherazade during the course of this PBPA (abrasive playstyle is the only thing that Jazzmyn clearly found scummy about Scheherazade, and that's craplogic since abrasive playstyle alone is NOT a scumtell).

Regarding Percy, it is possible that he was rabble rousing against Sche but I happen to agree with him about Sche
and I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy. I am not, however, enamoured
of his playing the newbie card in a couple of his posts.

@Jazzmyn: You think that because someone presents a valid argument then it's safe to ignore suspicions about his motives and execution?

Kindly refrain from manufacturing strawmen out of my words, Sche. Doing so does not do anything to alleviate my suspicions about you.

For the record, though, I do not ignore suspicions about anyone, and I am suspicious of everyone at this point in the game. At any given point in a game, it is a matter of which players are

most

suspicious to me, and those are the players who my posts will perhaps concentrate on at any given time, but that does not mean that I ignore anyone or anything - I don't.

Um, that doesn't look so much like a strawman as like a (badly phrased) request for you to elaborate on the reasoning behind "and I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy."

You don't have to be town in order to say something true.

Indeed. But I'm afraid I do not understand the purpose of this particular non sequitur.

Since Scheherazade isn't with us any more, I'll hazard a guess: He was trying to understand why somebody making valid points was enough reason to stop suspecting them, given the logical flaw in that argument that he pointed out above.

Now, the question for us us: Did you simply fail to understand this or were you deliberately misrepresenting Scheherazade's logic?

Regarding DerHammer, I don't find him particularly suspicious. Some have found his saying, "good start with the
scum being killed" as scummy but it didn't strike me that way, and I understood his "sarcasm" post, but I do think
he over-reacted to strife's post asking for people's opinions on the top 3 vote getters, and I don't like his early vanilla claim.

@Jazzmyn: What about his reactions to being voted? What do you think of his most recent vote and reaction to Juls' line of questioning?

I previously mentioned that his recent vote was for a dubious reason - perhaps you missed that, even though it was in the same post of mine that you quoted from above. I think his reaction to Juls in his post #250 was pretty lame, and that was the impetus for my agreement with Vi in my post #270 that the choice at the moment, unfortunately, seems to be "between useless and more useless."

I'm not seeing the explanation. Why was Der Hammer's reasoning for his vote dubious? More importantly, where did you explain that the reason for his vote was dubious? Maybe I'm missing something in the isolation read, but I'm not seeing.

Also note Jazzmyn's continued reference to nebulous "previously mentioned" reasoning, to an extent that suggests that Jazzmyn was trying not to offer reasoning at all.

Ribwich is pinging my scumdar a bit for his vote hopping, and his discussion of setup long after it ought to have ceased.

Fair enough.

@Jazzmyn: Has your suspicion of ribwich changed? It's been a while since he moved his vote. Does that have any bearing on your assessment of "vote hopping?"

I have filed away his response to my voiced suspicion of him for future reference, and will reassess my suspicion of him as the game progresses but I am content for now with his explanation of the setup discussion point. As for vote hopping, you are quite right that he has not moved his vote for a while, and that may or may not have a bearing on my assessment later in the game, depending on how things develop. I cannot predict whether it will or not in advance of seeing how he plays and votes in the future, so again it is something filed away for future reference.


Regards,
Jazz

Why does this look so much like using large words simply to avoid being pinned down to a specific position? (Rhetorical question, but the unwillingness to be pinned down that I'm seeing here IS a scumtell.)

@Jazzmyn: I posed it as a question because I was afraid that I had misunderstood you. It would have been a "strawman" if I tried to discredit your argument by arguing against one of my fabrication. Let me highlight the sentence:

it is possible that he was rabble rousing... but...I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy.

The implications of this post are that you could interpret this as scummy but choose not to because he says something you find valid. I'm asking, are you really discarding your suspicion here based on that?

No, Sche, you have constructed a strawman and you are indeed arguing against a fabrication of your own making, which is made even more obvious by virtue of the fact that you have to remove the bulk of my sentence to try to make it say what you would like it to say, rather than addressing what it

actually

says.

I call bullshit on this craplogic. This is a logical extension question, where you take an implication from someone's post and ask for clarification in order to expose any holes in the original reasoning.

And "You don't have to be town in order to say something true" isn't a non sequitur--it's a reaction to the statement I addressed above.

It is indeed a non sequitur, both to my actual sentence and to the strawman that you created out of my sentence. But it is probably moot since, as I have already said, I agree that "you don't have to be town in order to say something true". That doesn't make it any less a non sequitur on your part, though.

Again, craplogic.

Let us consider these statements: If "It is possible that [Percy] was rabble rousing against Scheherazade" and "I cannot interpret this as scummy because I happen to agree with him about Sche and I think he made several valid points"*, then the implication is that rabble-rousing is scummy but you are ignoring it because you agree with Percy. The logical flaw here is that just because someone is making valid points does not mean that he or she is town. The only way that your logic is NOT flawed is if you assumed that someone making valid points does, in fact, mean that they are town. Given this, Scheherazade's question makes perfectly good sense as a logical extension question intended to see if your reasoning was self-consistent.

* - edited slightly to more strongly show the implied cause-effect relationship

I asked about Der Hammer again because you saw fit to note that he'd done something suspicious in time to revise the post where you state an opinion of him without actually revising your opinion.

And yet, you failed to address the fact that I had indeed noted DerHammer's dubious reason for voting against you back in my post #246 (the very post of mine from which you quoted), when I saw his post during the 'preview' stage of posting my post, and I said explicitly that it had to be added for consideration to what I had already written. And you didn't address that at all until after I pointed out to you that you had omitted it from your queries to me in your post #272. How very odd.

I'm surprised Jazzmyn didn't consider town tunnel-vision, but other than that this part is solid.

Are you saying that his action has absolutely no bearing on your read right now?

No. Please see my posts #270 and #273, in which I have already expressed how his recent actions have impacted on my view of him. They still don't make me inclined to change my vote from you at present, though.

Regards,
Jazz[/quote]

Jazzmyn: Is referring back to previous reasoning part of your playstyle? Please give reference to a previous game if possible.

This seems moot because Der Hammer has a majority of the votes.

Actually, he had already been hammered four and a half hours before you posted that.

Let me explain myself again, because it seems that we're unclear.

#270 doesn't address Der Hammer directly, only in terms of relative use. It doesn't reveal anything new about your thoughts on him. All it says is that he's less deserving of a lynch than me, which was already clear from your vote.

That's why I asked what exactly you thought and cited a post to which I thought you might have more of a reaction. Why? Because in your previous mention of his vote, you mentioned it only as a note and mentioned "that consideration must be added" to what you had just written.

I wanted to know what consideration.

I do not understand your confusion, Sche. In post #246, I said that I did not find DerHammer particularly suspicious, but that I thought he over-reacted to strife's post, that I didn't like his early vanilla claim, and that I had noticed he had voted for a dubious reason which also had to be added to the equation.

In post #273, I answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls, saying that I thought his reaction was pretty lame, and that it was the impetus for my agreement with Vi that the choice at the time was between "useless and more useless" but I still found you more suspicious than DerHammer.

In #273, you merely repeat the sentiment that you'll address it later. He was about to be lynched, but you were filing your thoughts away for later? Why? What thoughts? Were they vindicating? Damning? I wanted something concrete, not "I'm going to think about it later." That wasn't the time for that kind of thinking.

No, in #273, I specifically answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls' post, as noted above. The latter part of my post in which I said I had filed away

ribwich's

response for future reference was about ribwich, not DerHammer. It was in direct response to your question asking whether my suspicion of ribwich had changed. You can tell this because I quoted your question and responded directly to it.

So, again, I do not understand your confusion.

Regards,
Jazz

While your explanation/summary of your posts is good, I do not understand why you were so certain that Scheherazade was not confused...

Gerrendus, Jazzmyn, DoomCow, Caboose. You were all voting Scheherazade for a significant period of D1; what's changed since then to keep you from voting him now?

Not a thing has changed regarding my suspicion of Sche, as should be clear from my post #327 directed to him above. He still seems to be deliberately obfuscating and misrepresenting others, just as he did yesterday. I was kind of waiting for him to respond to my latest post before voting again, but since he doesn't seem to be inclined to respond, I am going to go ahead and:

Vote: Scheherazade

It is probably obvious from my posts and my vote yesterday that I felt he was the best lynch choice then, and I still feel that way now. Regards, Jazz

As far as I can tell, it wasn't Scheherazade who was misrepresenting in the Scheherazade/Jazzmyn squabble, but rather Jazzmyn. See above for details.

No, in #273, I specifically answered your question about what I thought of his reaction to Juls' post, as noted above. The latter part of my post in which I said I had filed away

ribwich's

response for future reference was about ribwich, not DerHammer. It was in direct response to your question asking whether my suspicion of ribwich had changed. You can tell this because I quoted your question and responded directly to it.

So, again, I do not understand your confusion.

Regards,
Jazz

@Jazzmyn: You're right, I mistakenly applied the phrase "filing away" to the impression I was getting of your read of Der Hammer, not ribwich.

I was taking issue with the statement that you "have already expressed how his recent actions have impacted on [your] view of him." That view was that he was "useless" because of his reaction to Juls and "not suspicious" though his vote was "dubious"?

What I wanted was more of an explanation. If he wasn't suspicious to you, you were still willing to let him get lynched because he was "useless"? You suspected me, so why didn't you fight to get people to vote for the suspicious and useless person rather than just the useless person?

Besides that, you suspected me and all you did to convince others of my scumminess was to incorrectly identify one of my statements as ad hominem after another player already mentioned it and note that you didn't like my attitude?

If we're adding attitude into the mix, I'm going to go ahead and

Vote: Jazzmyn

for the following reasons:

1) Active lurking in the form of repeating popular views rather than generating insightful content.
2) Her suspect statement regarding Percy in her post 7.
3) Wilful dodging of questions, i.e. trying to ignore an explicit question by arguing that it's an argument, not a question.

On a related note, Jazzmyn, you dropped my concerns about your remark regarding Percy.

The sheer disingenuousness of this post makes me cringe. Seriously, I don't know how you could be more disingenuous if you tried.

Care to try again?

Regards,
Jazz

And he was being disingenuous... how, exactly? Explain in detail, please, because I'm not seeing it. Especially seeing as, as far as I can tell, Scheherazade was RIGHT about you dodging questions... and as far as I can tell, the player who was being disingenuous and misrepresenting another player's views was YOU.

'Should look at Jazzmyn vs. Scheherazade next.

Sure. I really don't know why Sche is still going on about this as my alleged "scumminess" appears to be based on the fact that I did not find DerHammer particularly suspicious, for reasons which I set out on the first day, and because I found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer and kept my vote on him, even when the DerHammer bandwagon gained momentum and ultimately led to a mislynch.

Misrepresentation on a massive scale. Let's take a look at his case against you, shall we?

@Jazzmyn: Sure.

The first four posts are fluff posts, with random voting, etc.

In your first real post, you cast a vote like this:

I've re-read all of the posts more closely, and come to the conclusion that the best place for my vote at this time is on Scheherazade.

I admit that I am influenced in this decision by the arrogance, rudeness and condescension in his posts but those factors do make me more suspicious of a player who has already behaved suspiciously.

In my view, if his initial game set up/rolefishing post was an innocent error, it would have been a simple matter to just say so and move on, rather than spending an inordinate amount of time and space arguing semantics, insulting other players, and posting links to a dictionary and to a logical fallacy site.

In other words, it is not the initial sin that bothers me as much as the follow up.

Vote: Scheherazade



Regards,
Jazz

You voted not because you thought I was behaving like scum, but because you didn't like my attitude. You admit that you aren't even convinced that my initial post was anything but an innocent error: you're voting because you're bothered.

This makes me think you might be scum because 1) you're more interested in lynching somebody objectionable than somebody scummy and 2) you take a very conservative position, rather than condemning me and staking your reputation on it.

Furthermore, you jumped on a bandwagon at a point where you wouldn't face much scrutiny but might get a townie lynched.

The next time you post is to repeat an accusation made by Caboose against me which was 1) untrue and 2) unrelated by you or Caboose to my scumminess. Caboose merely notes that it "really, really, really pisses" him off.

So not only are you not contributing to scum-hunting and parroting another player's opinion, you seem to favour emotional play over logical play in a second instance. Considering how carefully you try to word your posts, this strikes me as odd. It makes me think that you are aware of the mistake you've made twice.

Another post, promising another post.

Your next post, individual post #7, contains

1) a cryptic statement which you refused to explain when I questioned you about it,

2) parroted sentiments to the effect
--a) that Der Hammer's vanilla claim was suspect,
--b) that ribwich's voting behaviour was potentially scummy,
--c) and that al4xz acted oddly in his exchange with Juls,

3) and the instruction that Der Hammer's vote for me "must be added to what [you] wrote above." When I asked you to add it yourself to your own analysis, you accused me of failing to notice your post.

The first is interesting mostly in your reaction in subsequent posts.

The second is interesting because I think in your "read" you merely scoured the thread for other people's opinions. If you had no original content to add, then a townie would probably ask questions. By repeating other people's ideas, I think you were trying to give the impression that you were contributing without doing so, either in the form of original analysis, ideas or questions.

The third is, again, mostly interesting for your later posts. You could easily have updated your opinion of Der Hammer, but didn't. You just mimicked another player, ZazieR.

Two more fluff posts, notable mostly because you made a non-committal noise after ribwich addressed one of the suspicions you raised in your post. I guess that means you didn't suspect him any more.

Your next post, individual post #10, simply confirms that you're voting based on a scummy-vibe, which compels you to vote for me.

After that, you finally respond to me, having already ignored my first set of questions directed at you.

By "respond," I don't mean "answered." You spent more time repeating your previous positions and trying to avoid answering my questions than it would likely have taken to answer them directly. This leads to a run-around where you continue to attack me for asking you questions while repeating yourself. I think it's deliberate evasion.

When I cast my vote against you, you simply accused me of disingenuous posting. Again, you avoid answering the simple question I've been asking for eleven days. It was a stellar performance, but I think you're acting like a mafia player.

Let's see. At a bare minimum, I see the following points that Scheherazade made against you:

- You posted little unique content, largely following where other players had led.
- You refused to provide additional explanation/reasoning for your positions or elaboration on those positions when asked.
- You attacked players on Day 1 because you found them useless rather than scummy (there is a logical way for this attack to be rendered invalid, but I haven't seen any evidence that you used it).

Given this alone, your accusation that Scheherazade was attacking you for not finding Der Hammer scummy is, as noted, a blatant misrepresentation of his case against (and, in fact, a true strawman).

I find it more than a little ironic that Sche accuses me of jumping on a bandwagon to get a townie lynched (nice not so subtle role claim, there, Sche), and simultaneously seems to be critical of me for NOT jumping on the DerHammer bandwagon (who we now KNOW to be a townie).

Point out to me exactly where and how Scheherazade was attacking you for not jumping on the Der Hammer wagon... because as far as I can tell, he was attacking you for your failure to provide a full explanation for not finding him scummy (attacking the reasoning rather than the conclusion*), and if this is the case your representation of Scheherazade's case against you is, in fact, a misrepresentation.

* - Just because a conclusion is true does not necessarily mean that the logic behind it is sound.

As was said on the last day, the choice really did come down to useless v. more useless, so I think that Sche's accusation about my vote for him is frivolous. Moreover, I do not believe his role claim.

Explain to me exactly why being useless is scummy. Keep in mind that I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong here - I'm checking to see if your logic is sound.

As to his allegations that I have contributed nothing to the game, well, what can I say? I have tried to keep up as best I can and I have offered my opinions and answers to questions. Real life has interfered with my ability to post as often as I would like, but that happens to all of us sometimes, and real life has to take priority over the game, unfortunately. I am up to date now, with the exception that I have to re-read the posts about al4xz as I have not been able to analyze those as closely as I need to in order to comment on them.

Again, a misrepresentation on YOUR part. His attack on you was that you had offered nothing NEW to the game, even when you did have time to post.

Sche is not being honest when he claims that I made a "cryptic statement" and that I "refused to explain" it. My post was clear, and I did explain it when he indicated that he didn't understand it.

I don't know about Scheherazade, but I didn't see any explanation... just a referral back to your original comment and an attack on Scheherazade for not accepting your originally given reasoning.

I also, personally, consider your claim that your original post was clear utterly and completely wrong, considering that at least two players now have found it lacking (in my case, your Der Hammer post for the invalid logic and the "I'll take this into account" post for failing to ever elaborate on HOW Der Hammer's vote affected your thoughts on him).

I set out the things that I thought were noteworthy about DerHammer, and I added that a recent (at the time) vote by DerHammer had to be added to my consideration of him, as I only saw it upon preview of my then current post. I think it is clear what that means: it means that I would add it to my consideration of DerHammer. I don't know why Sche does not understand that simple statement, and I later answered his question and told him specifically that I had, indeed, considered that additional factor in weighing whether to move my vote or not, and I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer.

Your failure to explain exactly HOW or WHY Der Hammer's vote affected your reasoning about him, other than that you still found Scheherazade scummier, perhaps?

He is also incorrect when he claims that I have "parroted" others. Genuine agreement with the assessment of others does not = parroting.

At the risk of starting a semantics argument... yes it does, especially when combined with a failure to elaborate on your reasoning or a failure to look into players who were not either attacking you or already under serious scrutiny.

He is also incorrect when he accuses of me of merely "scouring" the thread for other people's opinions. I actually read the posts very carefully (including all of his "wall of text" posts on Day 1 - ugh), and frankly, I think that this allegation on his part is a bit silly, since it is a bald allegation that can be neither proven nor disproven. For a guy who seems to pride himself on his "logical thinking" skills, this is particularly scummy.

Then why not comment on any players who were not either attacking you or already under suspicion?

He is being dishonest when he claims that I did not "update" my opinion of DerHammer. I commented upon the (then) intervening exchanges and concluded that I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer, and I said so.

Unless I failed a spot check somewhere, this is the right answer to the wrong question: I was under the impression that Scheherazade was looking for elaboration about your stated reasons for your conclusion that Scheherazade was still scummier than Der Hammer.

He is also being dishonest when he claims that I did not answer his questions. I most certainly did.

By referring him back to material that he indicated that he found inadequate (by asking follow-up questions and attacking him when he did not accept your original reasoning? No, you're the dishonest one here.

His attempt to build a case against me on such a dishonest foundation and manufactured allegations is disingenuous to the extreme. I view this as scummy behaviour on his part.

Regards,
Jazz

That's funny, he's not the one who was building manufactured allegations on a dishonest foundation. You, however, were.

Oh, and as long as I'm here, Scheherazade's own rebuttal of this post:

Sure. I really don't know why Sche is still going on about this as my alleged "scumminess" appears to be based on the fact that I did not find DerHammer particularly suspicious, for reasons which I set out on the first day, and because I found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer and kept my vote on him, even when the DerHammer bandwagon gained momentum and ultimately led to a mislynch.

This is clear misrepresentation. Not only does it ignore the real, cited reasons for my vote, it's fabricated weak reasons of its own in order to discredit my vote. It is scummy behaviour.

I find it more than a little ironic that Sche accuses me of jumping on a bandwagon to get a townie lynched (nice not so subtle role claim, there, Sche), and simultaneously seems to be critical of me for NOT jumping on the DerHammer bandwagon (who we now KNOW to be a townie).

Incorrect. My point is that she didn't find Der Hammer suspicious but was set on my lynch, but didn't lift a finger to stop Der Hammer's lynch. If she didn't find him scummy, then it's reasonable to assume that she didn't find the arguments against him correct. If she didn't find them correct, why was she unconcerned with pointing out the flaws in them?

As was said on the last day, the choice really did come down to useless v. more useless, so I think that Sche's accusation about my vote for him is frivolous. Moreover, I do not believe his role claim.

Alignment claim, not role-claim. That I'd argue from the basis that I'm town aligned is all but a given in this game.

Sche is not being honest when he claims that I made a "cryptic statement" and that I "refused to explain" it. My post was clear, and I did explain it when he indicated that he didn't understand it. I set out the things that I thought were noteworthy about DerHammer, and I added that a recent (at the time) vote by DerHammer had to be added to my consideration of him, as I only saw it upon preview of my then current post. I think it is clear what that means: it means that I would add it to my consideration of DerHammer. I don't know why Sche does not understand that simple statement, and I later answered his question and told him specifically that I had, indeed, considered that additional factor in weighing whether to move my vote or not, and I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer.

The cryptic statement pertained to Percy. I've made that very clear. She has not answered it in the least. First she accused me of burning a strawman when I asked her a question. Then she ignored it completely. The statement had nothing to do with Der Hammer.

He is also incorrect when he claims that I have "parroted" others. Genuine agreement with the assessment of others does not = parroting.

Agreement without advancement is useless. It could be worse than useless if it's abused by the mafia to manipulate the town (the peer pressure effect, or perhaps mob mentality).

He is also incorrect when he accuses of me of merely "scouring" the thread for other people's opinions. I actually read the posts very carefully (including all of his "wall of text" posts on Day 1 - ugh), and frankly, I think that this allegation on his part is a bit silly, since it is a bald allegation that can be neither proven nor disproven. For a guy who seems to pride himself on his "logical thinking" skills, this is particularly scummy.

I made clear that the "scouring" remark was opinion. It's one of the reasons why I chose to highlight the facts and give my interpretation separately.

He is being dishonest when he claims that I did not "update" my opinion of DerHammer. I commented upon the (then) intervening exchanges and concluded that I still found Sche more suspicious than DerHammer, and I said so.

This appears to be the second of only two instances in this post where she addresses my accusation directly.

@Jazzmyn:
Let me be more clear:
Your individual post #7 states that you don't find Der Hammer particularly suspicious, but notes odd behaviour. As an after thought, you add Der Hammer's vote, but reserve analysis for a later post.
Your post #11 gives an opinion on his actions, but not on him.
Your post #12 is an attempt to attack me for asking you your opinion on Der Hammer.
Your post #16 is repetition and the declaration that you don't understand my confusion.
None of your other posts
So I say you didn't "update" your

He is also being dishonest when he claims that I did not answer his questions. I most certainly did.

You never answered any questions about your Percy remark.
You never explained exactly what your opinion of Der Hammer was as a player.

The Percy remark can be traced like this:
Post #7: You make it.
Post #11: You accuse me of making a strawman because I asked you a question.
Post #12: You repeat that I'm creating a strawman by asking you a question.

You never address it again, though I mention it in two subsequent posts directed at you.

Damnit, it's happening again. I get so bored of reading arguments that Scheh and his opponent make that I skim through it. =.= I'll have to do a thorough analysis of the arguments..

Both Jazz and Sche need to be more concise...

You both give me a headache. All the words end up blurring.

QFT. Way too late for me to read all of that. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

I, too, find it tedious and distracting, even while in the midst of these distractions with him. *sigh*

But I am not at all interested in a repeat of Day 1, so I'm just going to ignore him for now, unless he has something new, relevant, or specific to say.

My apologies for taking his bait.

Regards,
Jazz

Tedious and distracting my foot - Scheherazade has an active case against you and you simply refuse to respond to his points against, even after he just rebutted many of your points. More to the point, you consider Scheherazade the player most likely to be scum, and you just decide to ignore his arguments.

That's voteworthy by itself, especially given how this post implies that

you had made up your mind on Scheherazade and nothing he posted could change this

. (What I would give for my vig shot so I could simply take matters into my own hands here... my Gods, DoomCow was an idiot...)

Not scum-hunting - Perhaps. I would like to hear Jazzmyn talk about the other players a bit.
Voting on emotion - I hope you're not talking about that random vote on ribwich, because that's all that applies.
Allowing someone she didn't suspect to be lynched - 'Looks pretty false to me. Jazzmyn was voting for YOU D1, as were something like six other people. You could apply that argument to everyone not voting or voting for you.
Agreement without content - You could say something more along the lines of Jazzmyn only targeting people who are already being talked about. But I'll wait one more post before deciding here.
Avoiding questioning - Again, I'll wait one more post before deciding here.

I am not avoiding any questions. And I am not fence-sitting or deliberately only targetting those who have already been discussed, but since I can only post at night, it is often the case that those I find most suspicious have, indeed, already been discussed by the time I arrive. There is nothing I can do to ameliorate that, since I cannot post here from work during the day.

As for not scumhunting, I disagree with Sche's characterization, but I freely admit that I do not derive much pleasure in playing with people who are deliberately rude, condescending, and obnoxious, so I do tend to post less frequently in games in which that situation arises, such as this one. (I'm referring to Sche, not anyone else, for the record). I much prefer civility and a respectful approach, which I have found in almost all of the games I have played here. In those games, I am more active and much more engaged because they constitute a much more enjoyable use of my free time than dealing with a rude, condescending, obnoxious player.

Regards,
Jazz

Let's see:

Part 1: I don't buy your defense to "not asking questions" after your hostility to Scheherazade for asking you to elaborate on your reasoning. Your defense about only targeting players already under suspicion also falls flat to me, considering how little you discussed players not already under suspicion (it's possible, I'll grant that, but I'm not buying it). You are correct in one area, though: You weren't fence-sitting.

Part 2: Which doesn't explain why you don't offer comments/questions on other players... just why you might be less active overall in this game.

My views on other players:

TAX has been completely flying under the radar throughout the game with only 7 posts in the first three weeks of the game, almost all of them quite innocuous, but then he showed up promptly after DerHammer's lynching to chide Gerrendus for placing the hammer vote. Then he disappeared for good, and was subsequently replaced by Percy in an interesting sort of "undead" event after Percy's untimely demise on Night 1. I was suspicious of TAX, but Percy-as-replacement-for-TAX has not yet posted enough for me to evaluate whether my suspicion of his predecessor should continue.

Al4x is obviously suspicious for reasons already pointed out and discussed at length: the recklessness of his actions leading to DerHammer's lynching, his poor explanation for his allegedly not noticing the vote count, defending Sche, blaming Percy (in his first incarnation) for "confusing him into thinking he was voting for Sche" when he was, in fact, voting for Sche in his post #36 until he switched his vote to DerH in his vote #37, etc. There is little I can add to the discussion about the suspicious behaviour of Al4x that has not already been said, but I do agree that it is suspicious.

I am not getting any particular scum vibe from Caboose, Vi, Zazie, iamausername, or TomMason at present, and not from DoomCow either, but more activity is definitely required from the latter, with only 10 posts since the game's inception 5 weeks ago.

Gerrendus has come under some fire for hammering DerHammer, as is to be expected after any hammer vote, but his explanations of his actions sound plausible to me.

Ribwich was previously pinging my scumdar, but his explanation to my questions and his recent play have assuaged my suspicion of him, for now.

Juls did not set off my scumdar while she was here. Juls' replacement, PutaPuta, appears to be quite useless and his posts and play style are decidedly anti-town, but without breaking the rules about ongoing games, I cannot say much more. Suffice it to say that I know exactly what Zazie is talking about in her prior post, to which I replied above.

I think that covers everyone.

Regards,
Jazz

Note that Jazzmyn was perfectly willing to ignore my predecessor's lurking and general scumminess* yesterday, despite her zeal today.

Jazzmyn conclusions on Gerrendus reek of IIoA.

Her conclusions on Puta Puta are scummy as hell, and not just for the reasons previously discussed by other players. Note how she notes that Puta Puta is "useless and anti-town" but does not vote him for that after her comment to Vi Day 1 about how the choice was between useless and more useless... in a manner that appeared to conflate being useless with being scummy.

* - Yes, he was, even I'll admit that. What's worse is that I have no idea why...

Jazzmyn was notable because she said that she didn't find Der Hammer suspicious. If she didn't find him suspicious, I assume (and I must assume, because she didn't expand or explain much) that she did not think him likely to be scum. If there's one player who's likely to be scum and one who's unlikely to be scum, wouldn't a town player push to get the one that's likely to be scum lynched and point out why the one that's not likely to be scum isn't scummy?

Yet another misrepresentation of my posts, I see. Seriously, Sche, you should just stop it. My posts are there for all to read, so it does you no good to continue to try to distort them.

I never said that I did not find DerHammer at all suspicious. Nor did I say, as you pretended to quote in another of your posts that I found him "not suspicious". Rather, I said that I did not find him

particularly

suspicious, while simultaneously pointing out the things about him that I did see as potential concerns, and concluded that I didn't find him suspicous enough to vote for, and that I found you to be more suspicious than him.

Credit where credit is due - Jazzmyn is right here, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And this just in from Bizarro World: You seem now to be arguing that I must be scum because I didn't push harder to get YOU lynched instead of DerHammer. I voted for you. I explained why I was voting for you. I kept my vote on you even when the bandwagon shifted to DerHammer because I found you to be more suspicious than DerHammer. I posted my disagreement about which of the two of you were more useless, and expressed again that I found you to be more suspicious than DerHammer. What more, exactly, was it that you think I should have done to get you lynched instead of DerHammer?

I got the impression that he, if not was, then at least COULD have been asking why you didn't oppose the Der Hammer wagon more, rather than why you didn't push harder on his wagon.

And one thing that you keep failing to recognize: if you were town and I were scum, why would I give a darn which one of you or DerHammer were lynched? Answer: I wouldn't. If I were scum, I would have voted for DerHammer somewhere around the middle of the pack and been quite happy with a town lynch, any town lynch.

Instead, I voted for you and kept my vote on you because I found you to be the most suspicious player, and I am voting for you now for the same reason.

Regards,
Jazz

"But clearly, I cannot drink the WINE IN FRONT OF ME..." (Please note: that particular bit of Mafia theory is my favorite thing to subvert as Mafia.)

@ PutaPuta: Sigh, you are either going to get us killed or yourself killed. I prefer the latter.

Unvote: al4xz

He will not be forgotten. If someone replaces him, they will have to carry the weight next phase.

Right now, I think this has to happen, despite what I said earlier just thinking Puta Puta was playing like a fool.

Vote: Puta Puta

IAWTP.

Unvote, Vote: Puta Puta

Claim, contribute or die.

Without telling tales out of school (i.e., without discussing ongoing games), please be advised that PutaPuta has been known to post nothing but extremely anti-town posts and to then self-hammer as a townie for the sole purpose of being a jackass.

I realize that it might just be his way of trying to establish a mechanism for avoiding being lynched when he is scum in other games, of course, but for what it's worth, there it is.

Regards,
Jazz

Which of course poses the question "Why don't you just lynch him for making the anti-town posts, meta be damned?".

Or, better yet, "Why don't you make sure that every vig or SK shoots the hell out of him ASAP?"

There is a correct response to anti-town behavior. That response is to kill the offending player.

Jazz, you were flat wrong in the end about Sche.

Unfortunately, I was indeed wrong about his alignment (although I was not wrong about his play style being scummish, distracting, and unhelpful). Lesson learned, though, that players whose posts are scummish, distracting and unhelpful are not necessarily scum.

I must disagree with this characterization - after this last reread I found his play the most obviously pro-town play in this game.

THIS needs explaining.

In the previous (but still ongoing) game that I was referring to, PutaPuta acted like pure scum but turned out to be a townie who, after a very short stint, self-hammered to screw the town over. My reference to him being 'scum in other games' meant in 'games other than the one in which I know he was a townie.' I was saying that although I knew him to be a grossly anti-town townie in that game, I could see the possibility that he played that way in that game in order to set himself up for a pass in other games in which he is scum (that is, in games other than the one in which he was a grossly anti-town townie who self-hammered) As an aside, the game that I'm referring to was his first game here, or so I thought at the time. I didn't know then that he was actually here with a different name as a reincarnation of a previously banned poster.

Why does this change the proper response to his behavior?

Another quote that jumps out at me--

If I were scum, I would have voted for DerHammer somewhere around the middle of the pack and been quite happy with a town lynch, any town lynch.

There's a glaringly obvious problem with this statement. If you need a hint, look at posts 179 and 183.

Heh. Good one. But, it ignores the most important point, which is that if I was scum, I would have been happy with any town lynch at all, and it ignores the glaringly obvious point that, if I was scum, I would most certainly not have pointed out where I would vote on any given bandwagon, especially if I had, in fact, voted for someone in roughly the same area of a given bandwagon. I was born at night, yes, but it wasn't

last

night.

Uh, let's be more specific here: Even without Vi's comment, your defense here is fundamentally a giant pile of WIFOM. After all, there is a perfectly good reason why you might have taken the actions you did as scum: because it's not what scum are supposed to do and therefore makes you look pro-town.

If I've missed any other posts and/or questions directed specifically to me, I apologize, but the foregoing are the only ones that I saw on my first quick review. Night 2 was a brutal night with staggering losses and I will be re-reading the posts since my departure much more closely in the next couple of days in order to offer up my own analysis (and suspicions) in light of the current state of affairs.

Regards,
Jazz

Holy Sucks For Us! Tell, Batman!

In addition, in post #491, DoomCow purported to explain why he didn't vote for PP by saying, "As for me not voting PutaPuta, by the time I read her posts she was already at L-1. I wasn't willing to hammer after the claim."

However, PP was put at L-1 in post #450 on November 26 (and he was lynched on November 29). DoomCow's most recent post prior to PP being put at L-1 was on November 18 and DC didn't post at all between November 18 and December 1. So, either DC is lying about having seen when PP was at L-1 and lying about his reasons for not voting PP, or DC is admitting not only to actively lurking, but doing so to the extent that he made absolutely no comment on a player being at L-1 - not even to say that he wasn't comfortable hammering in light of the claim.

And yet, now he comes along and puts a player at L-1 without reading the thread, and justifies it by relying upon two other posts by two other players? This is way off base.

And how on earth does one justify having only 14 posts in the two full months that this game has been going on?

Vote: DoomCow

Regards,
Jazz

Admittedly a decent argument against me. Unfortunately, since I am not DoomCow I cannot answer for his reasoning in any way, other than best speculation.

More interestingly: Why the level of surprise for DoomCow only having 14 posts today when you seemed only moderately interested that DoomCow only having 10 posts when you commented on him on Day 2?

Jahudo,

Re: your post #583. I think you'll find when you complete your read of the rest of the thread that the matters you raised about my posts have already been addressed. However, if you have any questions of me once you've caught up, I will be happy to answer them.

Regards,
Jazz

Can't speak for Jahudo, but I don't find that the points against you have been addressed...

Craplogic. As previously noted by iamausername, Cop should not investigate scummy players unless he's out of unreadables.

That's easy to say, of course, but it is not even remotely universal among players for a Cop to investigate only those whom they have no good read on rather than those whom they have legitimate suspicion about.

In the particular circumstances of this game

, and in light of DoomCow's stated suspicion of Sche on Day 1 and the reality that Sche was going to still be under a cloud of suspicion on Day 2, I find it very difficult to believe that DoomCow would investigate TomMason instead of Sche on Night 1.

I base my thoughts in this game on the circumstances of this particular game, not on a generic strategy that some think a Cop should or should not employ in other games.

I can't be certain about DoomCow's reasons for his actions, but there's a gaping problem here. If you only have 1 investigation and a player you think is going to be scum is going to be under heavy suspicion and probably lynched the next day, why waste your shot on that player instead of confirming a relative unknown.

This second paragraph looks scummy as all hell. Note the pushing a wagon in a style I associate with scum while keeping an escape route open ("Perhaps once others chime in with their thoughts, I'll change my mind").

Excuse me while I look over your posts again.

Please do look over my posts again. They're all there for anyone to read.

I'm not 'pushing a wagon' at all, nor am I looking for an "escape route". Rather, I am leaving my vote where I cast it back on December 13 because your predecessor was and remains the most suspicious player to me at present. That said, this is my first game of this sort (I've only played in Newbie games prior to starting this game) and I fully recognize that there is much to learn, thus my willingness to do so, and thus my willingness to keep an open mind to the arguments of others, and possibly change my vote accordingly. If you find open-mindedness, a willingness to learn, and a willingness to listen to the arguments of others "scummy," well, there is little I can do about that.

And yet that "perhaps once others chime in with your thoughts" could also be used to justify leaving the wagon later.

I will admit, however, that this is unlikely given your later actions, and hypocritical given what was scummy about your attack (speculation about motives that the player you are attacking cannot possibly defend against).

By listing which shots I had used I was implicitly claiming that Doomcow used no actions N0. Poor phrasing, I admit, but not the slip you think it is.

Perhaps. But you were making an explicit role-claim at L-1, and you chose to be explicit about N1 and N2, so it shouldn't come as a great surprise to you that the lack of an explicit claim about N0 looks a bit off.

Regards,
Jazz

It doesn't (hence my "poor phrasing" comment). I was merely explaining why I forgot to specifically mention "no action N0" when I claimed.

Conclusions:

Given Jazzmyn's behavior towards Scheherazade D1 and D2 (including her failure to rebut his perfectly reasonable case) and craplogic, I only have three words to say here:

DIE, SCUM, DIE.

Okay, six.

Unvote, Vote: Jazzmyn

[Jahudo]

I still have some concerns about Vi's play, but Jazzmyn is a more viable lynch with only two days left and she was my backup vote as most scummy. I'll let her answer Tar's PbPa but I agree with some of these as scumtells.

unvote, Vote: Jazzmyn

[Vi]

@615: Wow, I feel inadequate. I and others saw some of those things already today, but the vs. Scheherazade analysis shows me how bad I am about giving people the benefit of the doubt. Tag errors aside, I'm not seeing anything to criticize in it.

@616: Why is Jazzmyn a more viable lynch?

[Tarhalindur]

@Tarhalindur: Could you condense that giant PbPA of ribwich to a sentence or two? I have some ideas of what it would look like, but for the sake of psychology I would like it to come from your text box.

Ribwich was somewhat scummy at the beginning of Day 1, but his play beginning around the middle of Day 1 has convinced me that he is probably town.

@615: Wow, I feel inadequate. I and others saw some of those things already today, but the vs. Scheherazade analysis shows me how bad I am about giving people the benefit of the doubt. Tag errors aside, I'm not seeing anything to criticize in it.

@616: Why is Jazzmyn a more viable lynch?

Pardon me for speaking for Jahudo, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that we have less than two days until deadline and it doesn't look like his preferred lynch is getting traction.

If you think the case for Jazzmyn is good, Vi, would you mind voting her? I'd really rather not have Jahudo lynched today, but that's starting to look like the lesser of two evils here.

[Tarhalindur]

Mod, can we have a mass prod and a 24-hour deadline extension (so that other players have a chance to look over the Jazzmyn case)?

Also, at approximately what time in hours will deadline fall?

[Huntress]

That's an impressive case against Jazzmyn but I'm a bit wary that it's an all-out assault made on the basis that attack is the best form of defence. (No, I haven't had a chance to check it out yet.)

I actually think this makes Tom more likely town either way, since it's a big risk for scum to fake clear fellow scum.

I agree with that, but I suspect that Tar isn't afraid of taking that risk, in order to get such a reaction. Tar's claim came after both Jahudo and I had expressed suspicion of Tom. Or if Tom was a GF then it wouldn't be so great a risk anyway. This is pure speculation as I haven't finished my read of Tom yet, although what I've seen so far hasn't changed my opinion of him.

Mod: I second the request for an extension; 48 hours pretty please?

[Vi]

Pardon me for speaking for Jahudo, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that we have less than two days until deadline and it doesn't look like his preferred lynch is getting traction.

If you think the case for Jazzmyn is good, Vi, would you mind voting her? I'd really rather not have Jahudo lynched today, but that's starting to look like the lesser of two evils here.

I would like for Jahudo to answer the question.
Also consider the context of what you're asking me to do:

Jahudo, why are you flipping from your #1 to vote Jazzmyn?

Unvote: Vi's #1
Vote: Jazzmyn

Also

Thirding Deadline Extension (48 hours + massprod)

if OhModMyLife is willing to give.

[Jahudo]

@Vi: Deadline is approaching and from what I could gather on other people who have posted their suspect lists, more people are suspicious of Jazzmyn than Vi and a majority vote on her could be reached in the time we have. I'm suspicious of both and at the time only slightly more so about Vi.

There's still time for the rest to add their opinions before the deadline.

@Vi: Who do you mean by 'giving "people" the benefit of the doubt' in post 617?
@Jazzmyn what do you think of Tar's PbPA on you?
@Tom Mason, Caboose, Huntress: What do you think about the Jazzmyn case?
@Imausername: What do you think about Tar's PbPa on Jazz? Is it enough to see her claim?
@Caboose and Zazier: What do you think about the claims?
@Zazier: Why are you lurking here but posting in other games as recent as yesterday?

FoS: Zazier

[OhGodMyLife]

All right, deadline extended to January 2nd.

[Tom Mason]

Jazzmyn has annoyed me with her continuous pressing of Sche since Day One. Much of the bickering that went on between the both of them, I glanced over and really felt was nonsense. It was more her trying to make a case out of nothing, or a very little something, against Sche. I think it is very interesting and true where Tarhar mentions that it was Jazz who was really misrepresenting the situation between Sche and herself. It was as if she was forcing a lot of words and interpretations into exactly what it was Sche was saying.

Unvote

It is as good as any vote we are going to reach at this point.

I am not forgetting about Jahudo, however. I still think you have some making up to do for your predecessor. And I do not particularly like you jumping right in line with Tarhar for the case against Jazz.

Vote: Jazzmyn

A claim from Jazz might be in order at this time. I know she is at L-2, but there is no need to necessarily wait for her to be at L-1.