Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Beyond_Birthday]

/confirm.

To be honest, I think I am losing my mind. I don't remember signing up for a game recently. must have been a bit of time ago...

*oh well, more fun for me. yay!

[Beyond_Birthday]

Vote mykonian

I'M THE OBVIOUS SERIAL KILLER!!

*Slices Gieff's wrist, and lets blood pour into my cup of coffee...*

[Beyond_Birthday]

The joke is on you; my blood-sugar is low.

Dammit! Foiled again!

You guys have just made me google "blood in coffee."

Apparently, putting menstrual blood in coffee is a hoodoo love spell.

...You bastard... *Throws knife at Ting*
*eats jelly, sitting with my knees to my chest.*

Unvotes

Note: Haven't read far, but I just got a fourth game, so I am going to come back and respond later. Sorry for the delay, but I am tired.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Aside from the SK slip (which, actually aside from Psychiatrist) I can't connect to any role that would know such, except, maybe, a day cop. But as to the timing, this makes little sense.

All and all, though I might be wrong, I think town is overreacting regardless of these people's alignments. I see no way sk could slip this way, no reason scum would say this (though there is some bizarre chance that they are connected), and no way of seeing any protown role with this information. In short, I am voiding any authenticity to that discussion, except, perhaps, immediate reaction, which are the most valuable of all.

[Beyond_Birthday]

This is going to be a long post. I'm reading through the thread and pointing out things as I go:

@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

Why did you assume mykonian's vote was serious? To me it seemed obvious it was a joke (though I'll admit I was thrown off by his later explanations), and I'm curious why this didn't even cross your mind.

Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting." But it is possible mykonian was serious, so I explored the possibility.

Right, I caught that reference. However, if you knew he wasn't serious, then why would you even bother to discuss other possibilities?

He wouldn't, of course, since the game began with Day. What Cop are you referring to? I didn't even imply anyone was a Cop. Rather, I said GIEFF's unlikely to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame. And where did the "3 players" part come from? Are you referencing GIEFF's "obvscum" comment in pregame, or did I miss something?

When you say "GIEFF is unlikely to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame" you are making the implicit statement that a cop could possibly out himself in pregame with information on 3 scum. My question was probing you to figure out how that would even be possible. In other words, why would you even consider cop a possibility, when a cop couldn't possibly have information on 3 players pregame?

I just don't get why you would even suggest the possibility of a cop, and then say why that reasoning doesn't work if:
1. A cop couldn't possibly fit the situation
2. You admit that you knew he was joking.
Why even discuss it in the first place?

He wouldn't... but he would have more information as to the setup of the game than a Townie would, which is what I said above. Also, here you reference the "3 mafia" again. Do you know something the rest of us don't? This isn't an open setup game to my knowledge, and the only weight I gave to the "knowledge pre-game" theory was because, via the roundabout thinking I detailed in my last post, mykonian's logic isn't complete crap. It's certainly not great, but it's not total garbage either.

Again, I'm talking strictly about your post. You talk about the possibility of GIEFF as a SK and then write it off as unlikely because a SK wouldn't out themselves so early. My question to you was along the lines of: "Why would a SK have information on 3 scum anyway?" Your reasoning for doubting the SK theory was because the SK wouldn't out themselves, instead of the more obvious answer of "the SK wouldn't have info on 3 scum". I was curious why that wasn't a part of your reasoning.

I'm certainly not clearing him... I'm voting for him, for cryin' out loud.

Ok. You had said "GIEFF can't possibly be mafia if he's trying to lynch mafia" but I mistakenly attributed that to your own point of view, rather than your interpretation of mykonian's.

FoS: Dourgrim

because this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.

Why only a FoS?

Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

Anyone have a theory discussion to point me to on this? Because my gut feeling is that this is VERY wrong. I'd much rather get rid of an entire killing faction in one lynch than whittle the mafia down one at a time, even given the chance of crosskill. BTW, we don't even know whether we have an SK or not, but if we do, Panzer's my top choice for him.

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer

.

I'm not sure on the theory, but I figure it's not all that meaningful anyway. At this point in the game we have no knowledge of there being a SK, so we don't hunt for a SK, we hunt for mafia. If there is a SK, and if we get to a point in the game where we know someone is the SK and know someone else is mafia and we have to make a decision between which to lynch, we can return to this discussion.

So, Macavity, you say we don't know whether or not there even is a SK, but then you vote Panzer based on the notion that if there is a SK it's him? Why would you vote for the "SK" when you yourself point out that we don't even know if there is one? Fishy.

damn it, you got me. That thinking does however work when there are two scumgroups, but I made a mistake there

Why bother with this explanation if your post was a joke?

I do think being aggressive is important, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. To me, little things like that are way to little to be taken the wrong way. But that's just me.

You don't catch scum without pressuring them first. Early in the game little things are all you have to go off of, and pressuring those little things is what eventually leads to bigger and more meaningful things. I'll agree that Dour is jumping on things that I wouldn't even bat an eye at, but I haven't seen any underlying scum motivations for his actions, at least not yet.

random

vote GIEFF

because he had the last post.

Why apply a second random vote to the same target? And why place a second random vote in the midst of legit discussion?

That's not necessary. But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it? Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.

Random votes and interactions in the "random phase" are surprisingly meaningful. Not placing a random vote actually denies the town potentially useful information.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how would we go about specifically finding the SK? Seems like the only way would be if they admitted to it.

There are other ways of telling. A SK has a specific win condition and will play in such a way to further that win con. SK's are interested in the death of everyone except for themselves. One potential telltale sign of a SK is not caring about who gets lynched as long as it isn't them.

One more question, just a clarification for a newer player. Are the terms 'scum' and 'mafia' entirely interchangeable, or does 'scum' also include SK or any other non-town aligned roles? The reason I ask is that GRIEFF's pre-game accusation referred to 'obvscum' which most people seem to interpret as meaning mafia, but could mean 2 mafia + 1 SK, or some other combination of non-town roles. On the first and second page, Mykonian and Goatrevolt both seemed to take it for granted that GRIEFF was referring to 3 mafia players. Is it possible that one or all of them inadvertently showed a more complete knowledge of the game set up than a townie would have?

Scum: An overarching term for anyone anti-town.
Mafia: A specific type of scum.

You are correct in that my assumption was that GIEFF's 3 players thing was referring to 3 mafia members. The standard setup for a 12 player normal mini is 9 townies against 3 mafia. When GIEFF calls 3 people scum, I immediately connected the idea that he's calling out the entire mafia team. It would have been unnatural for me to assume he's talking about 2 mafia + 1 SK or some other variation.

------

Unvote, Vote MacavityLock

Why are you voting for your SK suspect when you yourself admit we don't know there is a SK?

AT LAST! LOGIC!!

@Gieff, with the exception of the past few days, I post about once each day per game. I will have a low post count, but I will have large posts.

No That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I know his tried to be funny but he let loose a slip.

If you think it's a joke post, then why did you assume he didn't want to lynch mafia?

I agree that the first person to mention anything about a serial killer is more likely to actually be the serial killer, but only marginally so.

@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

This is another post by you that seems to indicate you took mykonian's vote seriously. If you thought it was a joke-post, you wouldn't think he was really calling me anti-town.

You didn't realize he was trying to be funny; you thought he was really calling me anti-town. This is abundantly clear based on your past posts.

And you just lied about it.

I agree.

To be blunt, I don't particularly like GIEFF's condescending tone in his posts

I wasn't trying to be condescending; sorry if it came off that way.

...nor am I fond of his "accidental" spin-doctoring

It was accidental. I was thinking you were scum while typing, and I mistyped twice. I will be extra careful from here on out. Let's drop this.

Let's not. Why must you be extra careful? Are you attempting to say that town cannot make errors or that you are mafia, and shouldn't make errors. I am seeing minor connection of you with grim, under the assumption that you are mafia. However, maybe this is how you react to criticism.

On this note: You shouldn't concern yourself with appearing protown. You need to scumhunt and assume that, live or die, your alignment will become known and your opinions and theories will actually have some merit because of your alignment (proven in death/by cop) or because they make sense. (I prefer the latter, actually.)

The above two quotes appear to me as if you are trying to make this emotional; let's keep it based on facts. When we start voting with emotion, the scum win. I am not trying to upset you.

However, you calling Panzer's early game "undoubtedly protown" is iffy at best. Why do you seem to be defending Panzer?

This is @mykonian, not me. I know you and I both know that, Dourgrim, just making sure everyone else does, too. I agree that it's an odd thing to say.

Combined with the deflection above, I'm going to FoS: mykonian and vote: Panzer. I'm sure this will end up being interpreted by GIEFF as me trying to deflect, or backpedal, or whatever, but remember this: if I were truly deflecting, why would I bring up all of this other garbage to make my point?

I'm glad you voted even though you thought I might find it scummy. I only think unvoting me is appeasement because you haven't convinced me that you really did think the reasons you presented for voting for me were valid.

You don't even have to convince me that they really are valid; just that you thought they were. Unvoting me before this is resolved looks like you are hoping I drop the subject. But I will not drop it, as the vote on me wasn't the issue; the logic behind it was.

My only problem with this is that you leave this here as a veiled threat. Looking into the future, should we expect you to randomly attack Dourgrim later, or does this post and claim lead somewhere later within the post...?

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

How? Unless he is part of the mafia, no one can know the whole scum right now.

How what? How are you lying?

You said you knew mykonian's post was a joke, yet your subsequent reactions to it prove beyond a doubt that you took it seriously.

FOS Panzerjager

Oh, I guess not. Just going to wait it to appear in the future later then.

We have 9/12 voting so far. Not voting: GIEFF, springlullaby, dejkha

Of those three, one has posted (twice) and didn't vote. Conveniently enough, that person also has two votes on him and so could be the Day One Bandwagon-ee. And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.

unvote: Panzerjager

vote: GIEFF

Sounds like you're overreacting way to much to what seemed like an obvious joke (calling you and two others obvscum is his confirm post).

Hmmm... so springlullaby suddenly appears on the scene after I note she hasn't posted, and then casts a meaningless vote (or at least it looks meaningless due to lack of explanation) after I criticize GIEFF for not voting while posting, despite there actually being a debate of sorts going on. Odd, somewhat suspicious, and definitely not helpful.

FoS: springlullaby

This also looks like you're overreacting. What it looked like to me, was Springlullaby casted a random vote and that's all. This is my first time posting since I confirmed and if I joke voted, would you be on my case because it was after you said I haven't voted? This is the first chance I had to post in the game since day one started. Ever think the same for her?

FoS: Dourgrim

because this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.

Vote djekha

The quote post above is a variation OMGUS: suspect someone by seemingly defending someone else for an action one has/is going to commit, the effect of which is to justify one's action.

This is further scummy because, if it is my prerogative to play as I wish, I certainly don't see anything remotely recommendable in my random vote. It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.

I have read the last pages or so. My comment on them is that I don't particularly like the dynamic of this town, there is plenty of talk and speculation but not enough true aggressiveness IMO. Note here that the SK talk may be interesting in the future but not now. Right now I would like to suggest more focused fire, starting now with a djekha wagon for example.

Why the Dejkha wagon? Do you not feel that the interactions between Gieff and Dour could rouse any usefulness? (Note, I like the reasons you vote for Dejkha, however.)

Myk's post 99 is going to be useful once we find out the alignment of Dour... (NOTE to SELF)
[quote="Goatrevolt"
@MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)[/quote]

Presenting bad mafia theory to support your vote is scummy because mafia would need a "real" reason to vote someone that is not, otherwise, scummy, or to justify joining a bandwagon without taking any real blame for the lynching of person X. (I know this wasn't at me, but I didn't see Lock respond and felt like responding.)

It is not always indicative of scum, but you must assume that town will always play in the interest of town to base scumhunting on, and in absence of attenuating circumstances, bad play is always scummy.

Yes, I agree. This is why I don't like Gieff's posts lately. It feels that he is trying to look town by attacking the same people (looks like scum hunting), presenting a lot of things for theory analysis, and by pointing out that someone else not scum hunting and thus must be scum.

A mislynch is not in the interest of the town, but that doesn't mean everyone on that lynch is scum for making a bad play.

Townies won't always play in the best interest of town. Townies will play in what they perceive to be the best interest of the town. There's a huge difference.

First point: A mislynch can actually lead to town victory, so while your statement is a generaltiy=true, it does not always hold still and seems to indicate that a nolynch is always better than a mislynch, which is almost never true.

Second point: You are also correct, but a townie should perceive, quite obviously, that they are to find scum, not preserve themselves. Hell, even power roles should act this way, to a point.

This is an interesting argument, I'm not sure if it is scummy or not, because here you seems to be saying that a mislynch is always bad play, which is not true. Sometimes someone is scummy despite being town, and there is little reproach one can make on people being on the lynch. It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.

Agree/disagree?

Oooh, I disagree. Your statement that someone can be scummy even if he's protown is bizarre. I thought "scum" meant "anti-Town", so how can someone be scum and be pro-Town at the same time.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

Point one: WHOA... really? You have never mislynched someone because they were particularly anti town or the led the way to a mislynch? REALLY?
Point 2: Should cop just come out and say (day 2 on) HOLY F***, I GOT A GUILTY!? Or should he try and find an argument or failings in the person post to logically get him lynched as to hide his identity?

A better example is this: Someone claims cop in their first post of the game. That is bad play. They've set themselves up to be night killed. However, it's not scummy, because scum claiming cop in their first post is a pretty stupid play. This person exhibits bad play, but that bad play is more of a townie bad play than a scummy one.

In other words, I disagree entirely about your assessment of dejkha. You're saying he's scummy because he's attacking early aggressive play (which is pro-town). I agree with you that doing so is wrong, but I don't see how it's scummy.

I claim, as scum, I'm cop. I am not night killed n1. I claim person A is town. Let's say he really is town. However, would you lynch the person for not dying night 1? What about n2? What if I really am cop and the scum know they can just discount the cop because claiming cop post 1 and living to the end game is scummy as hell. Also, I don't think your point is proven at all.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

If we were all infallible in our logic, then only the most illogical is always scum. This theory is true from being based off of the idea: only scum need to fabricate details to prove others are mafia. So, killing off the worst player is wrong, but VOTING for the worst player is right, as it tells you the most information from the reaction of other players and lets you know if the player in question is able to push you back and prove themselves more town then scum, during which, a scummier player will probably present him/herself.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

It's one level further removed from that. If people BELIEVE their logic is good, they are town. If they don't believe their logic is good, they are faking logic, as scum do.

Bah, I don't believe with this. If people believe their logic is strong, but their logic is completely faulty, I think they are probably scum.

At this point, Spring made a post that I am going to surmise with my own thoughts on the matter:

ANTI-TOWN=/=scummy.

Similarly,
Pro-town=/=Confirmed/cleared Town aligned.

These are just indicators we have as to the persons actually alignment, but we don't know anything for certain.

Dourgrim and mykonian seem to be much more interested in the meta-discussion about theory than the discussion about who is scum.

You are insinuating that there is solid discussion on who is/isn't scum. Care to present a case?

Panzer didn't think Mykonian was serious about you specifically being scum.

Rather, he felt that mykonian's statement that you were scummy specifically because you were hunting for mafia was a slip and a glimpse into mykonian's mindset that hunting mafia is bad. In other words, he knew mykonian wasn't serious about you being scum, but thought mykonian's reasons for even joking about you being scum was a slip and a revelation into how mykonian views things.

Make sense?

First of all, I don't like you defending him. Let him speak for himself. I assume you were talking about Post 91, but I have unanswered questions to Panzer about that post, and for you to step in and try to clear him before he has a chance to explain for himself is scummy to the extreme.

Not to defend, but we haven't heard from Panzer in a while on this.

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt? Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

He says, however, that we shouldn't kill the sk in the next few lines... sounds like we can't really guess from this post what Panzer was thinking, which is scummier than flat lying.

I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way.

Now this IS scummy. You knew it was meant to be a joke, but you blatantly ignored this to make a case with the assumption he did not mean it to be a joke...?

eh heh heh...NO.

Vote Panzerjager

This tips the scales out of your favor, panz.

Now would be a great time to "explain your playstyle" the way Dour would, as you claim. You officially make no sense.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Ebwop: I posted too early in my last post:

Up till this post (below), I feel no reason to comment on the back and fourth as it does little for me. The oldie card didn't seem to come at a time that, as a play, it would be helpful to Dour. As a result, nulltell.

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

see my last post comment on the cop, who may use a lie or seem to misintepret. I mean, honestly, there might be some reason, even if it is terrible.

Why can't I express that the aggressiveness that panzer showed is not a scumtell?

and that scum don't need to lie with logic? The logic scum uses can be perfectly sound, but the outcome wrong. For example, I started with logic.

assumptions: GIEFF knows something about the setup.
GIEFF wants to lynch scum.

logic: The fact that GIEFF knows something about the setup makes him antitown. Town doesn't know a thing.
GIEFF can't be scum, as he wants to lynch scum.

antitown + not scum + standard = SK.


But the assumption that a SK knows something about the setup is clearly wrong. The logic part is good. Scum can use logic, but as long as the assumptions are not right, the conclusion doesn't need to be right. And because you don't know a thing in this game, assumptions can be based on guesses.

THAT ISN'T SOUND LOGIC! O, WOW! WHAT A REVELATION!!

Your "logic" was a joke-vote. Panzer's was not. And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it. As I said in post 113:

And, again, your logic is stupid. That is to say that I can be scum and never lynched just by holding true to my logic. That is tunnlevisioned townie/scum, NOT ALWAYS TOWNIE.

Well, apparently we're not quite ready to abandon discussion of game theory.

And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell.

These seem to me to be contradictory statements. What if someone says something that he believes is true but is in fact untrue? How can you possibly differentiate between a lie and a mistake?

Therefore, what we seem to have here is an unprovable theory. There is no way whatsoever for someone to prove what another person believes or disbelieves, so how precisely can you decide who is lying and who is just not playing up to your standards? Example: Do you think I believed the logic I was originally using when I voted for you? How did you come to that conclusion? What factors might have changed your mind in this regard? And why exactly, when I conceded your points regarding the fallacy of my logic, did you insist that you believed I was trying to appease you rather than agree with you? What all this tells me is that your methods of finding "scumtells" via reading intent seem to be somewhat flawed.

Also, I believe inflammatory comments such as this should be avoided if you genuinely want us not to vote emotionally:

Your strong and irrational defense of Panzer is noted.

This is unnecessary, and as it appears to be a sentence designed to provoke another player, it seems to work against your earlier statement of playing without emotion.

Wow! Someone who actually uses their brain for the betterment of town and not to let town chase its tail. Amazing. *This is a long way of saying QFT.

I claim, as scum, I'm cop. I am not night killed n1. I claim person A is town. Let's say he really is town. However, would you lynch the person for not dying night 1? What about n2? What if I really am cop and the scum know they can just discount the cop because claiming cop post 1 and living to the end game is scummy as hell. Also, I don't think your point is proven at all.

This is going into theory discussion, so I'm not going to debate this with you, but I will say this: Try it and see if it works.

@MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)

Presenting bad mafia theory to support your vote is scummy because mafia would need a "real" reason to vote someone that is not, otherwise, scummy, or to justify joining a bandwagon without taking any real blame for the lynching of person X. (I know this wasn't at me, but I didn't see Lock respond and felt like responding.)

What if someone legitimately doesn't understand?

Also, I still want MacavityLock to answer those questions.

Then their reactions when disproven (Which should lead a truly town aligned player to find a new suspect with corrected theory) to look town by saying, "Oh, I see, I was wrong. In that case, then person Y is scummy, not person X."
OR!
"Disregarding that point, I still feel that my other points against person X still indicates that Person X is scum."

See my point? (And yes, the other is theory, just pointing out you were wrong in the other. And I still think it is terrible play, so I am not doing it.)

Side bar: This is one of the times where I am forced to post more than once in a day.

[Beyond_Birthday]

BB, I don't have the patience, desire, nor do I think it would be helpful for me to argue in circles with you. But I will say that I disagree with almost everything you said.

OK, since you used the word "almost" there, work backwards: what

do

you agree with in BB's uber-long post?

I'll start by saying that I disagree with his idea that logic is the end all for catching scum (good logic = town, bad = scum). Using good logic is not hard for scum to do, at all. Anywhere he seems to adhere to this principle I disagree. Logic is certainly a tool for catching scum, and sometimes bad logic is the intentional work of scum to fool the town, but it's not always the case.

Basically, anywhere he says that bad logic = scummy as a blanket statement I disagree with (likewise for good logic = townie).

As for the rest of his post, I'm not going to go through and pick out things I agree with. Rather, I'll bring up issues I have with other aspects of his post that aren't related to the above.

I actually argued that bad logic =/=scummy. I think logic based on fabrications are scummy and that logic based on misreading is mildly scummy. Reactions are far more conclusive on scumminess than faulty or non objective logic.

Furthermore: Your last post, I agree with it.

[Beyond_Birthday]

On this note: You shouldn't concern yourself with appearing protown. You need to scumhunt and assume that, live or die, your alignment will become known and your opinions and theories will actually have some merit because of your alignment (proven in death/by cop) or because they make sense. (I prefer the latter, actually.)

I believe you should be concerned with yourself appearing protown. Or at least, be concerned about not appearing scummy. If you end up in a situation where you have people questioning you as a prime suspect, defending yourself is fine, as long as you continue your scum hunting. IMO, it's best to avoid a mislynch, even though it can end up being helpful.

Oh, but of course. I would never say: Just let yourself die. I don't think, however, if you are legitimately scum hunting that you will wind up being the prime suspect.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Just a note: Mykonian has mild connection to Panzer if Panzer is scum.
Read to this point, nothing new to add. (waiting on Militant to return.)

[Beyond_Birthday]

Note to self: Read to this point, nothing to add and have no change of opinion.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Gieff, are you attempting to say that the too eager accusation is to be applied to Ting's case? I don't quite get your rationale.

Furthermore, I don't see how Ting's original post can really be seen as an accusation of Panzer being too eager. It is in the RV classification, right?

And additionally, I think Panzer's overreaction to the vote is the scummy part of the whole ordeal, which appears to be Spring's point.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Dour might have a point on Gieff. To be perfectly honest I haven't paid close enough attention to tell, but I do know that Gieffs reply, 224, was adequate in my opinion. I don't like Panzer's latest post, and I do like Ting's notes, if only for their reference and broad coverage of all other players.

I still follow Spring's logic and, honestly, appreciate her input. She has made the most sense to me, though she does lack the detail Gieff presented...

[Beyond_Birthday]

Meh...
I don't like some of the points being made against Panzer in this last post. Half of your argument seems to be reduced to a "random vote" that was claimed to have been, at the time of its posting, "not random" (by implication).

Unvote

[Beyond_Birthday]

Not really, but since I am currently debating on the validity of the Pan wagon, I no longer feel comfortable leaving my vote there. I believe that if you vote someone, save for the Rving stage, it is a call to lynch based on suspicions. (I prefer voting to FoS, and if I vote someone, I usually don't have an issue with their lynch.)

So, I am going to take a second look at the Panzer wagon, look at it, and see what happened.

As for the additonal points: Eh, kind of hit and miss because I don't clearly remember the context. I need to look into it. Some I'm like: Oh, I see that while others are more of a Wait...that happened...?

I really need to use your little URL post references and look AT the post to make sure I agree with a Pan lynch versus someone else. (Plus, to look at you would be helpful. Can't be a sheep to a shepherd in this game, nope, nope, nope.)

[Beyond_Birthday]

[any of his post since my last one]

*shrugs* Okay. <--doesn't care.

He's got no votes and I don't like his attitude.

Since you appear to be either an idiot or new, I'm going to tell you that neither of these are reasons.

Moreover, his logic also doesn't make sense, because the players are going to try to convince me in the past already anyway. It shouldn't make a difference if i'm reading old posts or new ones.

It does. How can you build a house without a foundation? It is great to ask for opinions and other people's views on what has happened AFTER you know what has happened. If someone else tells you, you get a biased, uneven opinion and then, you will only see what they have told you to look for. You fail to give the town a fresh, new perspective on the situation and more than anything THAT is scummy.

He's trying to stop a source of information, and that's not helpful at all to town. At the very least, it will be helpful to current players.

Stop what source of information? The same opinions he's been offering? And if you're talking about you: You haven't read the game yet and, therefore, clearly cannot be a source of information. This logic is nonexistent.

He's got a vote that needs explaining, also. He's the only one on MacCavityLock, and he should be explaining why he's there and where he stands on the top vote getters (something missing from the last few pages, at least).

If you read the past 12 pages (it isn't that hard. I read a friggin 30 page game in 2 hours for a replacement I KNOW you can read 12 in maybe 30 minutes since there are a lack of gargantuan posts), you would know his reasons for voting Cavity. And if you don't read those posts, how do we know you'll read any posts at all?

Also, I tend not to gain much from reading things before my replacement. It helps to have a frame of reference and comparing things in retrospect, rather than being confused and not having anything to base the players on. I need something to add color and dimensionality to the players, because as I'm reading right now, I have nothing to really distinguish one poster from another.

...WHAT?! You don't need a frame of reference! Just read everyone and try and develop your own characterization of each person otherwise your frame of reference will just be a copy of someone elses or you will ONLY counter one person. Offering your own opinion is much better than hearing the same thing again or an attack on ONLY one person's opinion. Seriously, replacing in is difficult, but not impossible or greatly challenging...

*despite her finished reading and what not, I am posting this because effort was involved.

At Panzer: No, honestly, I thought that Gieff had a point with your actions up to that point. However, I mildly reread his points, checked them, and then realized (much like Zilla's last post suggests) that it is just a petty argument over, apparently, a random vote.

Hm... Zilla' opinion on Panzer is interesting, but is that really it? You have no opinon, Zilla, on ANYONE ELSE AT ALL!?

C'mon, Gieff has several posts. You don't have a view on him? Goat?

[Beyond_Birthday]

Ebwop: (I missed page 12) I am referring to the post 274 in my above post.

Oh, and to clear something up, not having votes, while it can be a scum tell in that they have successfully dodged town scrutiny, especially when little is known or discussed about them, wasn't used in that context in this case.

I was merely saying that my vote isn't a very important vote because it's the only vote on him. If my vote would have put him at L -1, I wouldn't have done it and instead just handed out an

FOS

.

So...you are saying that if a person is insane, anything can be a scum tell?

I like the last few militant and Ting posts... however, I feel like I don't really know anyone is or isn't scummy exactly. I don't have a heavy read, and again, been busy, so I haven't looked into a few cases too heavily. I am going to do that, I promise. But, I won't get around to it till tomorrow. Sorry.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Beyond_Birthday

<—Obvious serial killer.

Zilla

Replacing dejkha<---
Okay, I don’t like Dejkha. His general posts rub me the wrong way. On the other hand, Zilla just screams lazy and makes me angry. Maybe Zilla is scum or town or third party or I don’t really know. Dejkha looked slightly more town than not though. Just, need more reads.

Dourgrim

You’re an idiot. Myk’s logic (his post against GIEFF) WAS STUPID. There is no role in a normal set up that could find all 3 of the mafia. EXCEPT MAFIA. If he didn’t list himself then obviously the list was fake. However, SK would NOT know the mafia. It doesn’t happen. A cop wouldn’t know, mafia members would never name themselves and their partners as mafia unless they were killed and did it out of frustration <–newb mafia. Also, you don’t dictate when people get to have their “random votes.” Page 4=probably too late for it. But page 2? Your attacks on GIEFF for his obvious scum comment is actually very good and well done. Your next counter argument is also well formed. Moving on, I like you in general. You make sense and I can agree with you.

GIEFF

- (for a bit more, see the end of mykonian’s)
Meh... your very closeminded and although I agree with your general arguments, I feel like you are currently tunneled onto Panzer a bit. It feels like the beginning of this started off so well and should have either been expanded upon or dropped when someone did something scummy (say, joining the bandwagon just for the hell of it) but lately the whole gangbang has gone down hill and the purpose of the wagon was gone when you admitted that over half of the argument all goes back to the Rving, which was irrelevant or lost in relation to the other just as weak points. I feel that your aggression may have back fired, but it isn’t scummy.

Goatrevolt

-
I have zero complaints.

MacavityLock

-
I don’t like his reasoning, which is apparently flawed. He voted Panzer for bringing up the idea of SK (though Myk alluded to an anti town non mafia faction earlier) and claims that Panzer is also possible for mafia. (His reasoning, however, is that Panzer brought up the SK so must be SK, so how does this make Panzer equally likely to be mafia and SK? Mafia are not aware of SK.) Aside from this, his reasoning on the mafia theory is stupid and wrong. I don’t like his theory though I do hope he gets well soon.

militant

- His first serious post questions Ting’s vote of Panzer, which he suggests is Ting attacking a player for initiating discussion. I can see his logic here, and he also brings a slight question against Cavity’s opinion on the SK vs mafia theory. I however feel that he reads a bit too much into SL’s post because he is kind of picking at words that are perfectly sensible to use. His last post is also generally amiable but more is needed in order to form any more of a solid read on Militant.

mykonian

- His general logic is baseless and stupid. However, he makes a few good points. For one, I do like his assessment of Dour and GIEFF. Hm.. Actually, his early point was baseless and stupid, but in general, I feel that his defense of Panzer is pretty sensible. He seems level headed in these later posts. However, he votes for me because I make a lot of notes, which doesn’t make a lot of sense. That’s okay though. I still acknowledge and don’t care too much.

Still...:

You are insinuating that there is solid discussion on who is/isn't scum. Care to present a case?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but here are the cases I presented before I noted that Dourgrim and mykonian were much more eager to talk about meta-game than actual-game.

Post 54 and Post 61 detail my case on Dourgrim.

Post 82 details suspicsions against MacavityLock, Dourgrim, as well as all the lurkers (especially yourself, Macavity, and mykonian), although you have shaken the "active lurker" label with your latest post.

Post 89, Post 92, the bottom of Post 96, and Post 105 relate to my case on Panzer.

Beyond is right here: you barely have a case. Most of it is weak at its best. Don't make more of it.

Beyonds notes are annoying, they appear too often.

vote Beyond_birthday.

FoS GIEFF

(no, I don't like your play)

I don’t follow how you agree with me and then vote me. How is annoying>pretending to participate? (I say this because I don’t know a better way to phrase what GIEFF’s later posts are.)

Panzerjager

-
For the most part, I don’t agree with a good deal of Pan’s assessments, but I know that Pan looks more like a victim for a majority of this game than an actual contender. (And by victim, I mean that the case on her looks like it was derived from a really crappy foundation and though the bandwagon should have had the purpose of forcing discussion, it kind of backfired and stalled. Maybe no one joined it scummily enough for it to be useful, but I think it should have served that function. Pan’s attacks on Spring though seem like legitimate attempts at scum hunting, so I feel a slight town vibe from Panzer. Her thought that my unvote was scummy struck me as odd, but I don’t really care if I look scummy.

springlullaby

- Her philosophy is one I like. (Her play style always reads as scummy to me, so I have to read the posts really carefully.) Um... like Goat, I don’t have much to say since again I have “no complaints.”

subgenius

- I like him too. He doesn’t post often, but he posts good information about the game. In general, I get town vibes and will leave him alone too.

ting =)

- I honestly feel that he is playing kind safe, but it might be his non agression in a lot of brazen personalities. (Spring, Dour, GIEFF, Goat even. The rest seem considerably more aggressive than Ting.

Of the whole bunch I would vote Macavity as he bothers me the most, but he hasn’t posted in so long I don’t really see the point. Oh well, I’ll just wait to next time. The next scummiest person might be Ting in my book, but I need a bit more discussion to really decide. (And the return of cavity with his thoughts will also help.)

[Beyond_Birthday]

First of all at Zilla: The reason I do not respond to weak votes against me is that it is not the townie's job to look "protown" it is there job to "find scum." Since my lack of scum hunting is a legitimate point, I will make no attempt to defend that. I have been lazy, which is not an excuse so I have no response.

It's not pot calling the kettle black at all. Do I have to be on a wagon to be suspicious of how other people relate to a wagon

The way you phrase it, I assume you're suspicious of BB for withdrawing his vote in a manner that indicates they may be paired, and that he was distancing for his vote. A lot of your logic contradicts itself, so I can't really tell if you're voting Birthday contingent on Panzer being town or scum.

It's completely independent of Panzer's alignment. It's possible he jumped off a scum buddy at the sign of an opportunity. It's possible he jumped off a townie when he no longer thought he could justify his vote. What I do know is that he jumped off Panzer based on a poor justification that suggests his initial reasons for voting Panzer were insincere. How panzer's alignment relates to this isn't terribly relevant and something that can be determined later.

Since in this post I see a legitimate and counter arguable reason you have to vote me, let me to de-spell:

Point 1: BB may have jumped off a scum buddy at the sign of opportunity.
This is incorrect, and in fact allowing myself a mild amount of wifom, I think I would ride the wagon as long as I could and be talked of unvoting. As a scum partner, this would be perfect for distancing.
Point 2: He may have jumped off townie now unable to justify his vote.
Meh, counter productive scum play. Better is to defend Panzer, which my last posts does (oh noes! I have proven myself doing something scummy!) No, actually, here is my reasoning:
Joking around led to "Serious" discussion...about the Rving, which were ultimately illogical and fruitless. There are a few existing gems, but they are scattered among senselessness and stupidity making them appear to be tainted with the same idiocy as the quote wars and votes. My reason for voting Panzer is that Gieff appeared to have some decent points. I figured that as a bandwagon, as all should, they should inspire significant discussion because someone will join it with poor reasonings etc. However, the little attack and defense between Gieff bore no fruit and the defenses by Panzer proved to appear more like a victimized, nitpicked townie. This may later prove to be wrong, but I can see that in the posts. (Granted, Panzer did attempt to provide some form of legitimate defense
that ultimately didn't help.) However, this is not the specific reason I unvoted. Since my reason for voting was based mostly off of someone else's opionion, I would no longer go along with that opinion as soon as he made that post before my unvote. After reading several of his points, I reread the relevant posts and found that a majority of his reasons were based on the rving stage, which is entirely invalid until the late game, and to be honest, the usefulness of the RV even then is questionable.
Point 3: BB lacked real justification for unvoting.
I no longer felt the case made by Gieff was justified.

Point 4: Point 3 indicates BB was never sincere about voting Panzer.
I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no. However, wouldn't scum be sincere about lynching a townie? Hell, even bussing a really suspicious partner would hold some benefit and the obscurity of the tactic would lead to its partial dismissal. This point, therefore, lacks merit.

@

Gieff

: Meh, I didn't research. Also, does "busted" go with a meaningless suspicion cast? A vote would be stronger and makes me want to OMGUS a meaningless FoS at you.

Also, Lynch all liars is entirely flawed. The only way in which is should be used is to have everyone say:
LAL!!!

And then not follow through with it. EVERYONE lies, but some for really crappy or stupid reasons. For example, X is cop. X is asked his role. He claims tracker (see relevant gambit.) Someone finds out he is not tracker(let's just say rolecop), and he is lynched. Ergo, LAL fails.

@

mykonian

: Your attackon the method he pursues players is flawed. Bad logic=/=scummy. Bad logic that is contrary to your normal way of playing (via, useful meta or proof to the contrary of your vocalized or utilized thoughts)=scummy.

@

GIEFF

:
You said:
1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.

1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...

@

Zilla

Anti-town=/=scummy. See my 1 in response to GIEFF above.

I'm saying right now, no, I'm not going to forego commenting on the current game before finishing rereading, because this game is a mess. I know this stems from Panzer changing his tune about how he viewed your SK post. I know what I need to know. I think you guys don't even want to go back there because you don't even know what the case is about anymore. Just about every case is so far removed from it's catalyst that it seems like nobody knows for sure how things got to where they are from where they started.

This is the one useful Zilla post I have found today.

/confirm

springlullaby, militant, and Dourgrim are all obvscum by this point

Why the hell are we still talking about this? Since Gieff is NOT in that list, then there is no role third party, town, or scum that can no all 3 people on the scum team. (Assuming 1/4th rule.) The only reason I attack this militant is because you use it in response to Zilla in fashion that appears to be you saying, "You're wrong it wasn't a joke." If you meant it some other way, please explain and otherwise ignore this comment.

@ Gieff's post 337:
Interesting. So, do you support of the theory that if Panzer is scum then Mykonian is scum? Or do you agree in the reverse being true? Or do you just think that it wouldn't be "that shocking?"

Also waiting for qwints

[Beyond_Birthday]

I would be OK with a BB lynch, and I would be OK with a mykonian lynch. I still like the Panzer lynch best though, based on other things like his active lurking (i.e. parroting), the "townie" slip, and the use of "truly" and "honest."

Pathetic?
"Townie slips" don't really exist.
Okay with three different lynches? Thinking 2 other people are scummy? You do realize that is half the town right? Look, I'm not saying that not one of the six people (Zilla, Panzer, Dejkha, Mykonian, BB, or ...okay, maybe five. Still about half the town) are scum, but you do realize that your general convictions and scum hunting tactics not only suck but are blatantly wrong?
I mean, you have basically told scum: If you stay by your argument, no matter how stupid, you look town to me. So either you are scum trying to validate your tunnel visioning on someone OR any of your bad arguments because you "really thought that to be truth(para)" or your just a fucking idiot who told scum to take you to lylo and stick by their arguments as long as they are at least half baked and appear to be convinced that their argument is right.

Your answers strike me as someone desperate to try to prove me wrong rather than someone genuinely trying to understand my point, which I don't think is so complicated that it should need repeating as many times as I have had to repeat it.

I don't give a damn how you view me. It isn't my perrogative to gain your approval and just because you're the biggest loud mouth in the town doesn't make you the most protown and nor does it make you become mayor.

And to be honest(Just to piss you off), I really think that this is a play style issue I have with you. However, I don't care. I'm okay with you arguing against me, but really, choose better scum hunting tactics. Yours suck.

Nowhere in your reasoning here do I see any mention whatsoever of GIEFF's points.

Good, now add this to:

I figured that as a bandwagon, as all should, they should inspire significant discussion because someone will join it with poor reasonings etc. However, the little attack and defense between Gieff bore no fruit and the defenses by Panzer proved to appear more like a victimized, nitpicked townie. This may later prove to be wrong, but I can see that in the posts. (Granted, Panzer did attempt to provide some form of legitimate defense
that ultimately didn't help.)

And right here you're saying the attacks and defenses between GIEFF and Panzer "bore no fruit." So they bore no fruit, but you're saying they were the justifications of your vote on Panzer anyway?

To make this as clear as I can: Above, you say you use GIEFF's reasoning to vote for Panzer, even though you don't mention this whatsoever when you vote Panzer and your vote on Panzer appears to be based entirely on his statement that he knew it was a joke but attacked it anyway. In fact, throughout this entire game you have consistently disagreed with GIEFF. I find it hard to believe you simply agreed with his take on Panzer, despite making no effort to say this was your reason for voting Panzer and disagreeing with GIEFF throughout the entirety of the game.

I was very busy and didn't care about this game too much. Yes, it is a blunder and NOW I would agree that your assesment can correctly call me scummy. Not because I'm scum, as I'm not, but because my play WAS scummy, just you picked out the wrong reasons.

Since my reason for voting was based mostly off of someone else's opionion, I would no longer go along with that opinion as soon as he made that post before my unvote. After reading several of his points, I reread the relevant posts and found that a majority of his reasons were based on the rving stage, which is entirely invalid until the late game, and to be honest, the usefulness of the RV even then is questionable.

I don't fully understand. I see two possible ways of interpreting what you've said. They are either:

1. You voted Panzer not because of the case on him, but because you were merely following GIEFF's lead. In other words, GIEFF thought Panzer was scum, so you decided to vote for Panzer based entirely on GIEFF's opinion that Panzer was scum and not on his actual reasoning.


1. This is scummy because you aren't actually examining the case before voting it. All you are doing is picking a player, and voting for his target. The only way I could possibly see you try to pass this off as pro-town is if you had a town read of GIEFF and thus were willing to trust his judgment in pursuing Panzer. I think I can shoot down this argument by saying that you constantly disagreed with GIEFF, which shows that either you didn't find him townie, or that you didn't trust his opinions. If you didn't find him townie, you wouldn't follow him. If you don't trust his opinions, you won't place your vote based on them.

This is correct. However, I didn't read the reasons much. I played sheep, went with general concensus and found a weak, generic reason to bandwagon. However:

I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.

This is BS. You placed the 4th vote on him during a time when his wagon was building. You made a comment about how mykonian was more likely to be scum if Panzer is scum while you remained on the wagon. The wagon grew to 5 votes, and you posted twice, saying you had nothing new to add yet you kept your vote on him. It seems like you were on that wagon for a lynch. Don't want to take my word for it? Let's check out the words of a more qualified expert here:[/quote]
First: Not really. I didn't expect to lynch Panzer. However, I was the FOURTH vote (going by your words), so that means 3 people who would have quickly vote Panzer and more or less quicklynch panzer in order for the pink kitty to hang. HOWEVER, are you honestly trying to tell me that the quicklynch (if Pan was town or not) wouldn't tell us so much information about the persons voting for Panzer? That is ridiculous. If 3 people quicklynched, I guarantee one of them would be scum. (And seeing the townies in this town, I don't think that any of us are new enough or stupid enough to quicklynch as town (or mafia, to be honest). And since I don't wanna mention it later: Aweh, thanks for calling me an expert.

I believe that if you vote someone, save for the Rving stage, it is a call to lynch based on suspicions.

Oh snap!

Your right, but I think you missed the entirety of my point on voting Panzer, but it seems null. You are sensible enough to reason on your own, and I am sure you'll make the right call. <---Please don't take this and say, "OH, I made the right call, CONFIRM VOTE" because it is both unnecessary and stupid.
The following is snipped at obvious points. Bold is my responses.

So, to clarify my points on BB:

Lack of scumhunting.

<---And you think I voted Panzer with an actual reason because...?

Lack of solid stances:

<--Meh, not really. I have stances but for a good majority, they are not too well defined yet. I feel that the motives behind people's posts is obscured, but this will become apparent once I have better reads.

Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon:

*Shrugs* I can't really say it wasn't suspicious. Convenient, I would agree with convenient. But convenient isn't necessarily scummy/suspicious. Still, I can definitely say that I think your town.

Post 349

Granted. Just wondering and I didn't *Get it* from your former post.


Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things, he reaches the right conclusions and at least considers the right reasons.)

However, I do disagree that he is brushing aside Zilla's defense of me as a mere petty grudge. I'm sorry, but Zilla has been far too adamant about defending me, as though she KNOWS my role. As a result, I am picking this up as a scum defending a townie situation which also frees Zilla from saying too much on the thread except commenting only on current game while claiming ignorance as a defense.

Vote Zilla

[Beyond_Birthday]

BB, you said you just agreed with my logic like a sheep and hopped on the wagon, but that's not what you said at the time.

I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way.

Now this IS scummy. You knew it was meant to be a joke, but you blatantly ignored this to make a case with the assumption he did not mean it to be a joke...?

eh heh heh...NO.

Do you no longer think this is scummy? When did you change your mind? Or did you just take my word for it that it was scummy, and you NEVER really thought it was scummy?

I never said it wasn't scummy. I never changed my mind. I took your word for and made up reasons that were relatively sensible. I wasn't really playing this game, was okay to lynch Panzer (not expecting it to happen, but figured the information would be worth it) and that I could leave the wagon quietly, but this didn't happen. I am not saying that these actions are void of being scummy. They can be very scummy. STUPID scum, but could be scummy. On the other hand, this does make me stupid (or particularly lazy) townie too, but I digress.

GIEFF-

Meh... your very closeminded and although

I agree with your general arguments,

I feel like you are currently tunneled onto Panzer a bit.

So you agree with my general arguments so long as their conclusion is not that you are scummy?

No, no, no. Out of context much? I agree with your general arguments, but I feel that your narrow view on Panzer has prevented you from taking any significant steps toward helping town. (Pre the BB incident.)

I'm okay with you arguing against me, but really, choose better scum hunting tactics. Yours suck.

I can see you're not interesting in having a reasonable discussion. I appreciate you responding to my 4 points, but when I responded to your responses and told you why I disagreed, instead of letting me know if you agree, or why you disagree, you choose to say:

Your method of scum hunting does suck, and it isn't reasonable to waste my time discussing why it sucks. Take that to the general discussion, which I never go to visit.

I don't give a damn how you view me. It isn't my perrogative to gain your approval and just because you're the biggest loud mouth in the town doesn't make you the most protown and nor does it make you become mayor.

YOU are the one who responded; I was simply continuing the discussion. If you aren't interested in a back-and-forth, then why did you answer the question, which was originally directed at mykonian? Do you have no answer to my responses? Surely if you think my logic is so horrible, it shouldn't be much trouble for you to reply, right?

I felt like I needed to remind you that your points suck. I don't have any problems answering your responses if they seem worth my time. And your logic is terrible but not so much so I feel the need to correct it.

I think the reason you felt the need to answer questions that were not directed at you is that you are interested in discrediting my case on Panzer in order to cover for your disengage from the Panzer wagon.

This is stupid? If I discredit the Panzer wagon is does not negate the fact that I removed myself from the wagon oddly in anyone's eyes, and it doesn't change the fact that I still think the wagon is, at the moment, stupid.

"Oh no, they realized my unvote was odd, I better convince them that I really don't think GIEFF's case is valid, as that's the reason I gave."

Worst line of reasoning ever.

It's unfortunate for you that there is evidence of you agreeing with my case before it suited your needs not to.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I hate the fish your third cousin twice removed ate too.

Lying about your reasons for unvoting is just as scummy as lying about your reasons for voting.

*Shrugs* I lied about both. I don't really care if you view it either way, you'll just have to assume that there is a chance I am either side (which is possible even if I was scum) and find that I am town or not. It's still your decision, but we'll see what happens.

I would be OK with a BB lynch, and I would be OK with a mykonian lynch. I still like the Panzer lynch best though, based on other things like his active lurking (i.e. parroting), the "townie" slip, and the use of "truly" and "honest."

Pathetic?
"Townie slips" don't really exist.

First off, he meant the slip where he used the word "townie." Misrepresentation ++, suspicion ++.

No misrepresentation, but a misunderstanding. However, nice job letting him defend himself. Not that I care too much.

Okay with three different lynches? Thinking 2 other people are scummy? You do realize that is half the town right? Look, I'm not saying that not one of the six people (Zilla, Panzer, Dejkha, Mykonian, BB, or ...okay, maybe five. Still about half the town) are scum, but you do realize that your general convictions and scum hunting tactics not only suck but are blatantly wrong?

Speaking of blatantly wrong, that's four people, dejkha was my predecessor. And where did GIEFF say he thought I was scum? Misrep++, suspicion++.

You clearly don't read posts. Misrep ++ <--OMG! THE HORRIBLE PLUS SIGNS!!*

I mean, you have basically told scum: If you stay by your argument, no matter how stupid, you look town to me. So either you are scum trying to validate your tunnel visioning on someone OR any of your bad arguments because you "really thought that to be truth(para)" or your just a fucking idiot who told scum to take you to lylo and stick by their arguments as long as they are at least half baked and appear to be convinced that their argument is right.

Taking a phrase out of context, misrep++, suspicion++.

*Stabs you in the heart* You're an idiot.

Your answers strike me as someone desperate to try to prove me wrong rather than someone genuinely trying to understand my point, which I don't think is so complicated that it should need repeating as many times as I have had to repeat it.

I don't give a damn how you view me. It isn't my perrogative to gain your approval and just because you're the biggest loud mouth in the town doesn't make you the most protown and nor does it make you become mayor.

And to be honest(Just to piss you off), I really think that this is a play style issue I have with you. However, I don't care. I'm okay with you arguing against me, but really, choose better scum hunting tactics. Yours suck.

Defiant, unhelpful, and avoiding answer, suspicion++.

*Continues stabbing heart* This is entertaining.

Now, onto the real meat.

Nowhere in your reasoning here do I see any mention whatsoever of GIEFF's points.

Good, now add this to:

Wait, what? I found out what you were talking about by reading that post, and you did indeed list reasons you agreed with GIEFF. Now you're saying that Goat's right? Confidence in my perception of Birthday--, suspicion++.

You're suspecting me with this load of bullshit when you could have simply said: "Oh, hey look, he agrees with Goat's reasoning that BB is scummy" and left it there? Weirdo...

I figured that as a bandwagon, as all should, they should inspire significant discussion because someone will join it with poor reasonings etc. However, the little attack and defense between Gieff bore no fruit and the defenses by Panzer proved to appear more like a victimized, nitpicked townie. This may later prove to be wrong, but I can see that in the posts. (Granted, Panzer did attempt to provide some form of legitimate defense
that ultimately didn't help.)

And right here you're saying the attacks and defenses between GIEFF and Panzer "bore no fruit." So they bore no fruit, but you're saying they were the justifications of your vote on Panzer anyway?

To make this as clear as I can: Above, you say you use GIEFF's reasoning to vote for Panzer, even though you don't mention this whatsoever when you vote Panzer and your vote on Panzer appears to be based entirely on his statement that he knew it was a joke but attacked it anyway. In fact, throughout this entire game you have consistently disagreed with GIEFF. I find it hard to believe you simply agreed with his take on Panzer, despite making no effort to say this was your reason for voting Panzer and disagreeing with GIEFF throughout the entirety of the game.

I was very busy and didn't care about this game too much.

Where did this suddenly come from? This statement, coming from left field, really had me questioning my read on BB.

How? It essentially says, Yes I did something scummy, and here is the reason. It isn't good. I'm not even pretending it is a good reason. But it is there, it is the reason, and you'll just have to either accept it or not. I can't force you and I'll only try in order to help town win.

Yes, it is a blunder and NOW I would agree that your assesment can correctly call me scummy. Not because I'm scum, as I'm not, but because my play WAS scummy, just you picked out the wrong reasons.

Focusing on the "You just picked out the wrong reasons," it's entirely strange that he says this. In fact, this whole quote is strange. He's basically saying Goat's case is valid, which contradicts my view on how Goat's case was invalid.

OH GOD FORBID ANYONE AGREES THAT THEY ARE SCUMMY OR THAT THEY SAY, THE INFALLIBLE ZILLA IS WRONG! Please, this is weak.

Since my reason for voting was based mostly off of someone else's opionion, I would no longer go along with that opinion as soon as he made that post before my unvote. After reading several of his points, I reread the relevant posts and found that a majority of his reasons were based on the rving stage, which is entirely invalid until the late game, and to be honest, the usefulness of the RV even then is questionable.

I don't fully understand. I see two possible ways of interpreting what you've said. They are either:

1. You voted Panzer not because of the case on him, but because you were merely following GIEFF's lead. In other words, GIEFF thought Panzer was scum, so you decided to vote for Panzer based entirely on GIEFF's opinion that Panzer was scum and not on his actual reasoning.


1. This is scummy because you aren't actually examining the case before voting it. All you are doing is picking a player, and voting for his target. The only way I could possibly see you try to pass this off as pro-town is if you had a town read of GIEFF and thus were willing to trust his judgment in pursuing Panzer. I think I can shoot down this argument by saying that you constantly disagreed with GIEFF, which shows that either you didn't find him townie, or that you didn't trust his opinions. If you didn't find him townie, you wouldn't follow him. If you don't trust his opinions, you won't place your vote based on them.

This is correct. However, I didn't read the reasons much. I played sheep, went with general concensus and found a weak, generic reason to bandwagon.

I agree that BB was using GIEFF's logic, but I thought it made sense. BB is now campaigning to say that it didn't, odd behavior at best.

When did it strike you that I was odd? The blood in the coffee, the sk bread crumbing. OH! Was it the point where my post made sense until you butchered it into little piece that look like incoherent fragments? Again, this makes perfect sense. I didn't pay attention, I didn't care about this game, I went with general consensus, fabricated a weak generic vote, and went with it. I started rereading just about the time I unvoted (I think right after, because I reread about the time I read Gieff's post) and have actually played this game from there. No it isn't the smartest thing I've ever done, but it happened, end of subject.

NOTE: I respond in bold in the quote below where Zilla responded by underlining. It is mostly Argumentum Ad Hominem with a few points. Enjoy.

However:

I didn't expect to lynch Panzer, no.

This is BS. You placed the 4th vote on him during a time when his wagon was building. You made a comment about how mykonian was more likely to be scum if Panzer is scum while you remained on the wagon. The wagon grew to 5 votes, and you posted twice, saying you had nothing new to add yet you kept your vote on him. It seems like you were on that wagon for a lynch. Don't want to take my word for it? Let's check out the words of a more qualified expert here:

First: Not really. I didn't expect to lynch Panzer. However, I was the FOURTH vote (going by your words), so that means 3 people who would have quickly vote Panzer and more or less quicklynch panzer in order for the pink kitty to hang. HOWEVER, are you honestly trying to tell me that the quicklynch (if Pan was town or not) wouldn't tell us so much information about the persons voting for Panzer? That is ridiculous. If 3 people quicklynched, I guarantee one of them would be scum. (And seeing the townies in this town, I don't think that any of us are new enough or stupid enough to quicklynch as town (or mafia, to be honest).

By this point, I was already entirely convinced what I thought I knew about BB was wrong. He's basically saying that his vote on Panzer was a move to draw out scum, but that he didn't actually want to lynch Panzer. Admirable to say now, but I find it a little to convenient, given that it now contradicts BOTH his previously stated reasons for voting Panzer.

I believe that if you vote someone, save for the Rving stage, it is a call to lynch based on suspicions.

Oh snap!

Your right, but I think you missed the entirety of my point on voting Panzer, but it seems null. You are sensible enough to reason on your own, and I am sure you'll make the right call. <---Please don't take this and say, "OH, I made the right call, CONFIRM VOTE" because it is both unnecessary and stupid.

Here, he again pulls a switchback and says the reasons may have been wrong, but that Goat is actually right. Potentially, he's trying to nullify his case by taking ownership of it because he doesn't actually have a real defense.

Me wrong and Goat right=obvious. You act like this is a big surprise? I never claimed to have a defense. In fact, when I vote you, I am like: of course I don't have a defense, and this is the reason why!
And just because I "take ownership of the case" doesn't mean that the case is nulled. This entire proposal is silly and I can't wait to hear the more sensible response of Goat. (Will he necessarily agree with me? Oh, hell no. He'll probably attack me again, but I am sure he will, having read the entire post and put it together BEFORE taking it apart, will actually make a good point or two.) You're scum in my eyes.

Due to how he answered the next, my responses will be

underlined.

The following is snipped at obvious points. Bold is my responses.

So, to clarify my points on BB:

Lack of scumhunting.

<---And you think I voted Panzer with an actual reason because...?

You just said you didn't vote Panzer for an actual reason, you said you were actually parroting GIEFF. Essentially, this validates Goat's point.

My response validated Goat's point. You are a master of the obvious.

Lack of solid stances:

<--Meh, not really. I have stances but for a good majority, they are not too well defined yet. I feel that the motives behind people's posts is obscured, but this will become apparent once I have better reads.

This reads as "You're wrong. I have a lack of solid stances because I don't have solid stances yet. Here's some distracting terminology that doesn't really address the actual accusation."

You're wrong? Your stances are also generally all over the place. Bah, no one has a REAL stance on everyone in the game. We have 3 or so people we have good feelings about and the rest are: Well, maybes.

Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon:

*Shrugs* I can't really say it wasn't suspicious. Convenient, I would agree with convenient. But convenient isn't necessarily scummy/suspicious. Still, I can definitely say that I think your town.

More "Your case is valid." response

You act like I am opossing his case? God, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

This whole section was quite intriguing to me, as I had thought those four points invalid, mostly from his long vote post. Suddenly, he turns it around by saying that those points are entirely valid.

I believe I've already addressed his closing statements.

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things, he reaches the right conclusions and at least considers the right reasons.)

However, I do disagree that he is brushing aside Zilla's defense of me as a mere petty grudge. I'm sorry, but Zilla has been far too adamant about defending me, as though she KNOWS my role. As a result, I am picking this up as a scum defending a townie situation which also frees Zilla from saying too much on the thread except commenting only on current game while claiming ignorance as a defense.

Vote Zilla

Actually, it was because I was initially very dubious of Goat pushing on BB, especially when his entire stated reasons were three things I didn't really see or agree with, and especially because his case seemed really weak. I looked into his case on BB and I didn't see what he was talking about aside from the uncommitted stances, and I missed the retraction about his motivation for voting Panzer, if he had even made that by that point, so all those factors had me thinking the case was pretty bad. Now, however, BB seems to acknowledge that the case was actually solid, and, most importantly,

reaches the right conclusions

.

Conclusion he made:

BB is scummy.
I agree this is true, however:

BB=/=scum. (NOTE: On Day 1, it is really hard or rare to prove a person is scum 100%.)

I know I am scummy, and while I dunno how far it will convince people, but I know Zilla is scum because I forced her to back pedal. (Scum would never expect a town to do this, I'm sure.)

I love her reaction, and I think Gieff might actually be able to catch this scum. Also, notice the lack of vote on me from Zilla? I have 2 vote, right? So why affraid to vote me?
I dub what you have written in post 396 to be equivalent to nothing. Here is the reason: You said what I said, except made it out to be that I argued against Goat when I did no such thing. Talk about misrepresentations.

[Beyond_Birthday]

I have nothing to add at the moment exceot to respond to Dour's question:
I do realize I am agreeing with Goat's assesment of my play (though he assumed the slightly better reasons of his two assesments on my thoughts, but he gave me a bit more credit than I deserved). Not only is there no point in me defending my scummy play but there really isn't an upside to defending it either. Any explanation aside from claiming that it was some insanity gambit (it kind of worked out that way, but wasn't intended) would probably be more likely to be created by scum than by town. All town arguments would be very stupid, and I'm not stupidly going to claim that the play I made while not paying attention to this game makes any damn sense. It doesn't thus looks scummy, and I am forced to agree with this.

However, I know I am not scum, and Zilla's arguments reach a certain level of stupidity or confident assumption. Either Zilla is a complete moron townie or a scum who knows I am town aligned. Given the possibilities, I think that Zilla was blinded by the fact that she *knows* I'm town and couldn't pull this out very well in her skim read of the thread. As a result, she sees that I am possibly going to be lynched (semi justified by Goat's arguments) and she gets townie brownies while also (this assumes Goat is town) getting to push for a Goat lynch for having what she percevied previously as a stupid case. As a result, I think Zilla is mafia.
Oh, and speaking of eloquence...

*takes militint's arm, and slices open the wrist.*

Heheh... it flows as a warm trickle down your skin before gathering together to slide and fall as a droplet of blood to the ground. *licks the wound* And so sweet...

[Beyond_Birthday]

Dour: I know I am town. I think Zilla is scum. I have nothing more than this and I believe a few, even though they think that I am scum, would agree that under the assumption I am town in this situation, Zilla is scum. However, I have no way of proving I am town right now, and can only hope my future play better reflects my alignment.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Hm.. somehow Panzer's vote change rubs me the wrong way though it is explained well enough. I'm going to assume it is paranoia.
Moving right along:
I still think Zilla is scum, so:

GIEFF, Goat, and Dour, do any of you think Zilla is scum?

[Beyond_Birthday]

I still think Zilla is scum.

I am not SK.

These interactions mean nothing to me right now. Much more useful later.

I expect an angry Dour post, but I have nothing of any importance to comment on except for Militant's notable absence.

[Beyond_Birthday]

@BB's 384.
Ugh. I hate the 'I don't need to bother defending myself' vibe you give off. Or how you blatantly admit to looking scummy, shrug it off, and then give the impression that we should too. It's unhelpful. Also, anti-town. I think I've mentioned this already in my previous post.

I'm glad you see my point, I just took it to an extreme circumstance. As for the quote above, here's a response:

What? You would like me to pull a "You may ignore the mod and show your PM to town" card out of my ass? My play was inexcusable and stupid. It got me in a mess from which I will have a hard time pulling myself from. I am not saying you should (though to bring in wifom, it would be to town's benefit, again, see the "Ignore mod" card above), and as a final note:
anti-town=/=scummy

BB: A few times throughout the thread you mentioned that we should be suspicious of players jumping aboard the Panzer wagon with weak reasoning. Were you implying that we aught to be suspicious of you?

Well...I'm not scum so no; however, that is the logical conclusion that anyone who joins a Wagon should be scrutinized. Still, my reasoning was just the blind following of another player. I would think scum to be more careful, but this is admittedly totally wifom.
BTW, *Cuts your wrists* Ignore the meta behind the curtain. <-joke.

Also at Myko: Meh, this game has a lot of quick posts. I am not lurking so much as I don't like posting more than once to thrice a day, prefering the far left of the spectrum of course.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Okay, let's see what we have:

Goatrevolts's super long post: I find the general point agrees with the thoughts I have had on Zilla since she started defending me (or about that time). I find it interesting that he believe that if Zilla is scum that I still could be. Personally, this seems flawed as a thought process, but I'm not really sure. (I know I am not scum, and therefore can conclude Zilla is scum without considering my own alignment as being relevant.) Obviously, if Zill is actually town, this is irrelevant and I could still just as easily be scum (if not more so), but if scum, I think that the suspicion on me should be decreased greatly. (By greatly, I mean even halved, which if Goat's numbers make any sense, is about 10% higher than the rest of town anyway.)

I could be wrong, but I don't think Goat has been misrepresenting Zilla. I would like a few examples to support you theory Zilla, like: here is my post "blahblahblah"
He quoted and took it to say I said, "hlbljhal" which is not true.

mykonian has thrown me off as a lurker and irrelevant, which is more or less fine. However, major conversation for the past few pages has been Zilla/goat, do you have no comment on this mykonian?

I admit I agree with some of his synopsis on the Gieff/Panzer argument, but I can see both as town, or one scum, maybe even both, thought the latter is greatly unlikely.

I might be back today.

[Beyond_Birthday]

No, Mykonian, which is fine.


I can claim since I believe Zilla put me at L-1, which I find scummy. Why? Because in Gieff's post:

I believe that's L-2, so let's be careful about future B_B votes. If you want to vote, just use HOS instead. If we get enough votes and HOS's so that votes + HOS = lynch, I think a claim is in order.

I highly recommend one person UNVOTE so we may resume speaking about day and seeing if whether or not Zilla is a better lynch than myself. I simply think Zilla is far scummier for:

*Refusing to see Goat's point
*Presenting nitpicked arguments.

*Defending a townie (who is clearly scummy looking with true reasoning. However, only scum KNOW who is town) until the town's own argument proves this=false, thus ruining her claim to protecting the innocent for Day 2.

*Having a poor defense of myself Day 1 that ignores facts.

*For being generally scummy in her play.

*For refusing to take a stance on me for a majority of the day and only proceeds to attack me when pressed hard for it.

*Ignores, without acknowledging, Gieff's request policy to not vote me yet and use a "HOS" as to not risk a mis, quicklynch. I just feel that the complete refusal or acknowledgment is scummy. (Just to clarify)

Also, I can claim, but if people think this lead is better, I suggest we follow it.

[Beyond_Birthday]

EBWOP: Person voting me. I am not saying don't lynch me, just don't lynch me yet. I really feel we have scum here.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Beyond_Birthday: got mainly voted for distancing. I think that a weak argument, when you don't know the allignments of one of both. I feel he was an easy target.

No. This is not true. A major part of the case was his suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon.

Note: Mykonian said this, not me.

As Gieff said, Zilla's post is deflection and I think that Mykonian is being too cautious in this game.

Big fat meaningless FoS: Mykonian.

[Beyond_Birthday]

mmm... yes.

This is true. Subgenius strikes me as semi town, but his posts are too far between to really gain any read.

I think that qwints is also nearly impossible to read.

Spring has gone absent for a long time.

I think militant is town at the moment, but same as the others.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Yeah, keep pushing that "solidarity" angle, and continue the hypocritical deflection, and continue warping reality, and continue to double-speak about Birthday, and continue to misrepresent my reasons for voting Birthday.

It is day one. Saying anyone is scum with 100% certainty is an impossibility. However, you are the scummiest player in my eyes. I presented a bulleted case, which you don't seem to care to acknowledge the existence of, that shows you are the scummiest player because of you actions. So it isn't as simple as "I vote BB and now I'm scum. GRR!"

I don't like how they've changed their tune about Birthday entirely and completely just because I DID vote him.

False. You clearly don't read posts, do you?

That's putting the cart before the horse. I was apparently scummy for not voting for someone they thought was scum, now they're saying I'm scum because I'm voting for someone they think is town.

They haven't said I'm town, they've said that your more likely to be scum. Misrep much?

*Note: Omitted things are something that only Goat can answer, something aimed Myk that I had rather see his response to, and an attack on SL based on her absence which is actually valid.

[Beyond_Birthday]

I understand that zilla isn't being attacked for being abrasive, I just think she's being attacked because she is abrasive.

I read it as a scum-led drive against an unpopular player.

BOLDED is a contradiction.

ITALICS isn't a valid response since the alignment of all people are unknown, and you provide no reasoning to say it is scum driven. (This statements leads to "Ergo, people on the wagon are scum," which is a point you have failed to make.)

[Beyond_Birthday]

unvote

vote qwints

Zilla, I would very much like to hear what you think about my above post.

Interesting and all, but to question Gieff:
If Qwints is scum, what does that alignment say about other players?

At Dour: It seems you have read far enough to know about the turning of tides, but tell me, what do you think of Gieff's attack on qwint?

[Beyond_Birthday]

Grr... I can't really comment on the Gieff/Dour discussion, so I will just acknowledge it exists.

I am going to assume the statements of the following quote are true to make a point.

First statement:

Beyond Birthday launched the attack on Zilla.

Second statement:

BB = scum.

Conclusion:

I think that you and goat revolt found what you were looking for when you followed the scum driven wagon.

You fail to define what Gieff and goat revolt were looking for. This is not derived or assumed in the "given" two statements. This lacks reasoning and/or logical follow through. The "scum driven wagon" is also false since it insinuates that if BB is scum than the wagon is not on or against scum.

You have not addressed the points made in my call to lynch post against Zilla nor proven how they are false. You cannot assume a person is scum in order to conclude that their points are invalid. (Why? With both the "points against a player" and the "accusers alignment" unrelated, either the former, the latter, or both can be true.)

Your post fails to really answer this. Your other post also fail to acknowledge the point raised against Zilla or to bring up a reason why BB>Zilla in terms of scumminess.

Side note: Do you think if Zilla is scum if I am town?

[Beyond_Birthday]

Hm....

I still think that Zilla is scum, but under the assumption she is town aligned, she has a point. The point stands if she is scum but lessened by the fact that she is scum.


AT Dour/Gieff:

Look, I don't get involved because seeing your thoughts spread out in a total attack versus attack is far more useful for a read on the two of you than anything else in this game. However:
I don't like Dour asking for the rest of the town to weigh in to prove his case. I felt he was doing an adequate job, but this is exceptionally minor as a point.

The "conclusion" (see the area box) is fitting and I think puts both of you in the slightly less likely to be scum category.

I still think Zilla is scum and no other opinions have changed.

Prod Spring, please.

[Beyond_Birthday]

I have read to this point and I must say that I don't like this attack by Gieff:

For those on the Zilla wagon now; how much more do you support a Zilla lynch than you would a B_B lynch? I think they are similarly scummy, yet the Zilla lynch has some issues that the B_B lynch does not.

which seems to contradict to this exact response to my attack on Zilla, Post 549:

Unvote

Vote Zilla

AND TO NOTE! THIS IS THE ENTIRE POST 550!

I don't understand Gieff's reversal over the past 5 pages since he only unvoted Zilla to pressure and pursue to a point young qwints. His unvote failed to revote Zilla, but it seems that he is stating he has a reason to doubt the Zilla lynch without reason. He then asks Goat for his case, while ignoring the validity of mine. He doesn't provide any reason why my case isn't good enough anymore.

By his own logic that town would stand by their convictions, this looks slightly scummy, and I am posting this for reference. I still strongly feel that Zilla is scum and will maintain my vote there.

[Beyond_Birthday]

EBWOP: Post 548, not 549 was my case. 549 was an EBWOP to post 548.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Something he said, this is NOT his post.

I'm not saying you stopped supporting Zillalynch, just that you seemed to be switching you tone, as though to say my lynch may be preferable, and I was just making this thought known.

Where's Zilla?

[Beyond_Birthday]

I believe that with Militant's willingness to vote Zilla (or myself, admittedly) that make the seven votes necessary for lynch. (L-2+militant+Gieff)

I demand a claim from Zilla.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Fos Gieff

I've concluded that if Zilla is scum you are. You voted for Zilla several pages ago with little mention of any intent to lynch me. Now, suddenly, you think that lynching me is superior to lynching Zilla whle backing no proof. The great part is that you have made several points against Zilla.

Short form: You are indecisive. You suggested that townies would cling to their principles no matter how stupid. You are not because you are disagreeing with yourself. I conclude you are therefore mafia for contradicting your own theory on play.

I still want a Zilla lynch, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Gieff, you asked me a single question in that entire post. You responded to my post, yes. But pose your own questions? meh...not really. But, since you apparently overlooked it before from post 548. And again, your very next post said ONLY an unvote, vote zilla. That's it. Nothing else. No original reasoning. Your last post 543 was, admittedly, just before Zilla's switching her vote, but you, the "big" poster, didn't mention that this was the specific reason in your voting post? My only assumption is that you agreed with the following. If this is true, how did my lynch suddenly become better? You EVEN say that I don't need to claim, so I just don't see your big push for my lynch being better until recently.

HOWEVER, my biggest problem is this: Why the hell has Zilla not claimed yet?

*Refusing to see Goat's point
*Presenting nitpicked arguments.

*Defending a townie (who is clearly scummy looking with true reasoning. However, only scum KNOW who is town) until the town's own argument proves this=false, thus ruining her claim to protecting the innocent for Day 2.

*Having a poor defense of myself Day 1 that ignores facts.

*For being generally scummy in her play.

*For refusing to take a stance on me for a majority of the day and only proceeds to attack me when pressed hard for it.

*Ignores, without acknowledging, Gieff's request policy to not vote me yet and use a "HOS" as to not risk a mis, quicklynch. I just feel that the complete refusal or acknowledgment is scummy. (Just to clarify)

*Refuses to claim despite her demands being met.

[Beyond_Birthday]

1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.

Number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, but you still think I'm a better lynch... which is odd for the reasons Goat pointed out and I am not wasting valuable time reiterating.

Number 1.2 is given an exit clause in you 2.1 below. I don't like this and it doesn't make you look town aligned to me.

1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...

1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

2. Yes they can. But hopefully they make some mistakes, and reveal to the rest of us that the reasons they provided for a vote are not genuine.

3. I agree about cop-knowledge, in general. I don't see how that applies to our current situation.

4. Seriously? Read back. Even Panzer will tell you he was being serious. I think that even mykonian will.

Number 2.2 (just above) is violated by Zilla several times. I think that 2.1 shows that you believe town would stand by their arguments even if stupid. I will now define stupid as acting illogical, making unwise choices, presenting unwise or unfounded cases, or acting scummy. Just keep replacing each in until you find the one(s) that fit the reason I called you stupid.

And yes, I read your posts, I am not reresponding to them because, again, I am not going to waste my time. Furthermore, you can consider my vote on you if your alive tomorrow. I differ with Gieff and think that Zilla, Gieff, and someone random though antagonistic with them is a scum team, but I do acknowledge his point on Dour.

Spring, shall we assume you caught up?

[Beyond_Birthday]

I'll respond to your points, because discussion is pro-town.

IF

solely for that reason, this is a very scummy statement.

1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.

Number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, but you still think I'm a better lynch... which is odd for the reasons Goat pointed out and I am not wasting valuable time reiterating.

Number 1.2 is given an exit clause in you 2.1 below. I don't like this and it doesn't make you look town aligned to me.

Beyond_Birthday wrote:

1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...

1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.

2. Yes they can. But hopefully they make some mistakes, and reveal to the rest of us that the reasons they provided for a vote are not genuine.

3. I agree about cop-knowledge, in general. I don't see how that applies to our current situation.

4. Seriously? Read back. Even Panzer will tell you he was being serious. I think that even mykonian will.

I agree number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, and I think she is scummy. Number 1.3 was ALSO performed by you.

But I didn't deny this. Honestly, I was half assing this game and not paying much attention until whenever it was I was bandwagoned by Goat.

And for some reason, when I pointed it out, it was stupid

When you see someone surrender and acknowledge the point, you don't bring it up again and again and again. THAT IS stupid.

and didn't even merit a response, yet when Goat points it out, it's perfectly valid, and you have nothing to say in your defense.

All true...? What's your point?

2.1 is not an exit clause.

It can still be treated as an exit clause, no matter what you claim it is supposed to be.

It is a clarification, and one I have made many, many, many times before that point.

If I could say for certain who was faking logic and who was not, that would be a 100% accurate scumtell, right?

False.

Townies try to guess who is scum based on logic, intuition, and reasoning. Their votes are based on the results of this logic, intuition and reasoning. Scum's votes are not.

False. Scum play is theoretically not based off of logic, intuition, and reasoning is a false statement. In a 100% vanilla game, I would, regardless of alignment, always play to attack the scummiet player, pressure, and see reactions in order to reason out a percentage of scumminess in order to decide if person is acting as scum or for self preservation. I wouldn't care who my partners were or were not. In that sense, I would be a mad dog who would attack anyone who plays incorrectly. Thus, your statement is false in the simplest form. In games with roles, scum can play this way to attempt to avoid investigation. Also, the manner they play does not demand that they follow their attempts to find investigative roles. Thus, I strongly disagree with your read on mafia play.

Everything else I use is just different ways of trying to discern if the logic/reasoning is being faked or not.

Number 2.2 (just above) is violated by Zilla several times. I think that 2.1 shows that you believe town would stand by their arguments even if stupid. I will now define stupid as acting illogical, making unwise choices, presenting unwise or unfounded cases, or acting scummy. Just keep replacing each in until you find the one(s) that fit the reason I called you stupid.

I agree completely that Zilla has violated 2.2 a number of times. But, again, 2.1 does NOT show that I believe town would stand by their stupid arguments. Changing your mind is not scummy. Townies can make mistakes. However, townies' objective is to get at the TRUTH, so if these mistakes are pointed to a townie and the townie cannot refute them, he should revise his case. If someone continues to hammer on a player as Zilla has on Goat, then that is extremely scummy, and I've said this over and over again.

Granted, but again, your reasoning only looks at one possibilty. You could give scum buddies an out if they make it look like they were proven wrong and admit it and appear townie for being able to acknowledge their error. It CAN be used as an exit clause. I have already critiqued your play because you just handed out to scum (before the posts cited above, can't recall where) a blue print on how to appear town to you. So, yeah, this is scummy to me since I do not know of any town motivation to declare how you decide a person's alignment.

Have you been reading the thread? How can you say I think that standing by stupid arguments is town when I've attacked Zilla for doing just that? I'm also a little surprised that you think I am Zilla's scumbuddy; I have spent far more effort attacking and building a case on her than you have.

What? You know what, no...no. I just don't fucking care anymore. You are so illogical... *Takes your wrists, slices open the skin, and lets the blood flow out.* I refuse to drink this because it is obviously infected with stupidity.
Just because you make a strong case against someone does not clear you from being their scum buddy.

None of them, specifically. They are excellent points, and I think Zilla is scum.

And you are not voting Zilla because...? What? Is the cage too small you have no choice but to wither from an attempt at following through with your thoughts?

Beyond_Birthday 100%, obv sk. (This is a joke.)
Zilla - 54%
Dourgrim - 38%
GIEFF - 49%
Goatrevolt -29%
qwints -46%
militant - 32%
mykonian -40%
Panzerjager - 39%
springlullaby - 35%
subgenius - 36%
ting =) - 36%

Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?

Goat

Here are the percents of scumminess all have. These assume 0 is perfectly town and scum is 100

[Beyond_Birthday]

I still strongly feel that Zilla is scum and will maintain my vote there.

Zilla - 54%

Strongly is an arbitrary 54%?

Yes. My percentages very rarely, if ever, exceed 60%. My percentages very rarely, if ever, fall under 20%.

BB: I wonder, does your percentage-based system takes into account differences in posting frequency? The "lurkers" overall seem to be rated lower than the frequent posters. I'd be curious to know how this system works.

Actually, the system does take account lurking, but that system doesn't work until at least day 2 and very based on the persons content level, under the assumption that when they return that they actually post meaningful content. Sub and Ting are in danger of this, I know. However, my percentages on them will not be too high until at least day 2. (And lynch all lurkers is a terrible idea. If my rating system gave lurking too much weight, I would be killing the wrong person almost every day, non?)

To pick out the conveniently absent people, Ting and Sub will definitely have a much higher percentages tomorrow.

Note: Gieff moves up, mykonian moves down. Goat's up 1.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Note: Gieff moves up, mykonian moves down. Goat's up 1.

What is your reasoning behind these shifts?

Goat's indecision adds +5, but his lack of an unvote indicates he is just trying to reason through and insure that he calling to lynch correct person, -4

Gieff's post make more sense to me from a scum angle, moves up.

Mykonian's being attacked by Gieff, moves down.

These two latter shifts are about 2-3%.

However, Gieff is starting to fit his mold a bit better in later post... -1 Gieff

___________________________

You know, this is really starting to piss me off. This entire game has just been dubbed too fucking long.

We are arguing ourselves in circles. We need to lynch somebody already. 35 pages in a mini is not good for town. It's not. There is nothing good about this.

I say we lynch Zilla and call it a day. I really do.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Is it time to replace subgenius and ting yet?

You're skimming through the game and not at all reading. I posted 24hours before you said this.

No, just being antagonizing, and okay whoever said sub is being replaced didn't see that.

Meh...
This game is really tedious just because I think we've reached a point where...I don't care. I'm reading... yet I am caring so little at this point because arguments are all flowing together, opinions oscillate so much that I just don't know...

I don't like Zilla, and on her my vote will remain, but I see the point against Qwint. He comments little, bandwagons at the central point (scum critical cite Wiki), and hasn't exactly responded to any accusations. I would be okay lynching Qwints. I don't yet feel comfy lynching myknonian or Panzer, but I am relatively okay with the latter versus the rest of town. Of course, Gieff is a bit up there, but since he isn't even close to the chopping block, I'll just mention him again as being scummy. (Three people a lynch does not make, right?)

[Beyond_Birthday]

See above on what to skip, and thus far, I see qwints and Zilla's name coming up over and over again. Anyone here wanna say who to lynch since both are on my list too. Kinda want Zilla first because of the information that pushes her to be more valuable in addition to her scumminess. And Qwints might be scummier to other people so... yeah, if you had to pick, who?

*votes Zilla*

[Beyond_Birthday]

See above on what to skip, and thus far, I see qwints and Zilla's name coming up over and over again. Anyone here wanna say who to lynch since both are on my list too. Kinda want Zilla first because of the information that pushes her to be more valuable in addition to her scumminess. And Qwints might be scummier to other people so... yeah, if you had to pick, who?

*votes Zilla*

Till now, I saw 3 that had qwints in their lists, 4 that had zilla, 5 that had you.

Nice thing about those lists: you can count the names. Please don't try to steer the lynch by making us thing there are only 2 options.

Till now, I got this:

3 Qwints (mykonian, goat, Panzer)
4 Panzer (mykonian, zilla, GIEFF, militant)
5 BB (mykonian, GIEFF, militant, goat, Panzer)
1 Goat (zilla)
2 mykonian (zilla, GIEFF)
4 zilla (GIEFF, militant, goat, panzer)
1 GIEFF (Panzer)

Maybe I miscounted on Qwints or not but, the actual count should actually have:
4 qwints (Mykonian, goat, panzer, bb)
5 Zilla (gieff militant, goat, panzer, BB)
2 Gieff (bb, panzer)

Nice counting on your part as well, neh?

[Beyond_Birthday]

This is going round in circles for me since most people have begun to recant their earlier cases against others.

As a result, this game has become a giant headache.

Also, we are only waiting on Senfan, right? I have a sneaking suspicion he will suggest my lynch as well to force my claim.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Indeed. Just checking in before I go somewhere else and do nothing.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Somehow, I can't find a mind to object Goat. Still, I rather wish you wouldn't lynch me. But since your argument never lost any weight and you explained why you lost interest in Zilla, I, again, can't have any objections.
I'd rather see a Zilla/Gieff lynch though...

[Beyond_Birthday]

I like Sensfan's analysis. It is the first sane analysis of my play for most of the game. I am not cop, but I don't buy Panzer's claim at all. Still, my line of thought prevents me from voting for Panzer yet since it is bad play. Thinking...thinking...
Need time to consider the claim. Anyway, I don't think I voted Panzer of put him in my top 3, but I surely would now.

BB's latest post also rubs me the wrong way; just because panzer was accumulating the solid votes, he acts like he has nothing to worry about.

I've never had too much to worry about nor have I really been to concerned about worrying about anything. <--convoluted on purpose. Basically, I don't have anything to worry about, so you statement seems a little skewed...

Still want Zilla lynched because I still see her actions as scummy.

Gieff still look scummy. I would also agree to his lynch.

[Beyond_Birthday]

I still like Sensfan's analysis. No change since I am waiting to be attacked enough to claim. Also, I don't like Qwints' last post, not for his UNVOTE, but because he just seems to let attacks role off him without even acknowledging them. (who, huh, what? Did the guy who just ignored Goat's attack actually saying that? Oh, wait, never mind. He's just saying Qwints isn't acknowledging attacks against him. [/end making sure point of this post is known.])

[Beyond_Birthday]

Checking in to rebut:

"reaching the right conclusions" is that I am, indeed, scummy looking town. I'm not denying that. I never said that his case was flawed except when it concluded I was scum. I'm not scum, I've don't remember saying I was scum, just that I've been scummy. I brought this up because your defense of me was obvious. Also, I disagree with you on the "seeing [your] point" because your point is stupid in my opinion. On that, I am agreeing to disagree since it is irrelevant to new matters:

Qwints is scummy as hell and seems to be attempting to lurk his way out of the spot light.

Gieff

Panzer claimed. That claim puts panzer in my top 3, end of subject. (however, I wouldn't support a panzer lynch as of yet.

[Beyond_Birthday]

I was very busy and didn't care about this game too much. Yes, it is a blunder and NOW I would agree that your assesment can correctly call me scummy. Not because I'm scum, as I'm not, but because my play WAS scummy, just you picked out the wrong reasons.

Now, as this post should imply:
I am in no way saying nor can I even begin to suggest that Goat's case is invalid. His case is entirely valid and well reasoned (though assuming the wrong things, he reaches the right conclusions and at least considers the right reasons.)

Okay, so it's entirely valid (but parenthetically, it assumes the wrong things). The previous part of that post is all about what Goat "missed"

The following is snipped at obvious points. Bold is my responses.
[quote=""Goat"]So, to clarify my points on BB:

Lack of scumhunting.

<---And you think I voted Panzer with an actual reason because...?

Lack of solid stances:

<--Meh, not really. I have stances but for a good majority, they are not too well defined yet. I feel that the motives behind people's posts is obscured, but this will become apparent once I have better reads.

Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon:

*Shrugs* I can't really say it wasn't suspicious. Convenient, I would agree with convenient. But convenient isn't necessarily scummy/suspicious. Still, I can definitely say that I think your town.

These are quite murky and echo the opinion that Goat has the right idea to call them scummy, but that his arguments aren't actually valid. So you've said you think Goat's case is valid explicitly, but inherently, you've pointed out where you think it's invalid.[/quote]

I now like this person slightly for accurately reading my post.
Also, her last post makes sense and her ability to play with a level head, granted she is without pressure, reduces the odds she is scum. Furthermore, qwints is scummy. We should lynch him. Panzer doesn't strike me as cop, sorry to disagree. Gieff's statement is true, but wasn't a good idea to explain to town/scum. Also, Zilla's last post also isn't true sense Mafia may keep the cop alive and determine its threat level versus increased suspicion on the STILL living cop. Hm... Not liking that much.

In any case, town should move forward while we have time to probe again in case qwints' claim causes us to change directions.

[Beyond_Birthday]

... Where's the Qwints vote though? You're saying things like "We should lynch him," but instead you're still voting me.

My bad:

Vote Qwints

I'd like some sort of defense...yah?

[Beyond_Birthday]

Unvote; Vote Qwints

His post rubs me the wrong way. I also believe Panzer is possible scum.

*wants Gieff to explain last comment.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Irrelevant. Very relevant is why I am being voted by Spring for a "refusal to claim." Weak since I'm not the one about to be lynched. If I were, I would claim.

[Beyond_Birthday]

I agree. This is L-1 now, correct?

[Beyond_Birthday]

We are arguing ourselves in circles. We need to lynch somebody already. 35 pages in a mini is not good for town. It's not. There is nothing good about this.

I figure this is a good time for me to claim. My role is "3-year-old." I am afraid of the dark, so I must prolong the day as long as possible; my win condition is to get the thread to 50 pages before a day 1 lynch.

OH NO! GIEFF JUST WON! GAH!!!

[Beyond_Birthday]

I agree with Sensefan. More importantly, I would love to hear the Panzer results before we really get started today. That is certainly first and foremost.

[Beyond_Birthday]

He was vote 4 out of 7. L-3 is kind of an ambiguous limbo to put your vote in, somewhere between distancing and lynching. He also places the vote during a time quite a ways after anyone else had put the BB vote on. From this approach, I'd say it's more likely he's intending to lynch BB, and intended his vote to direct attention toward BB more, rather than distancing.

Yet this also follows my theory that scum are likely to be fourth vote. Although, I don't think this is actually previously stated in this game so just a meaningless statement.

I was hesitant to vote Qwints because it was a GIEFF suggested wagon, who I did not trust that much. I like him much better today, and I think that we made a great choice yesterday. Hm... the fact that there was a framer and a potential scum role blocker. This may be a stretch, but I really think that a pro town role blocker would definitely leave the "cop" alone for at least the first night. It doesn't necessarily reflect badly on whoever Panz investigated because rber may or may not be who Panzer's target. SO, that is null. What isn't null is GIEFF's point on the Qwint's delay on voting Zilla. So:

Vote Zilla

I don't follow the attack on Spring much. Though, there is the possible derailing attack, I find the Zilla point to be stronger.

I don't think I missed anything...

[Beyond_Birthday]

I don't think I missed anything...

Birthday, why so hesitant to vote Qwints?

Irony.

Where?

Did you notice qwints jumping on Panzer and B_B's wagons, but not jumping on yours? Did you think it was odd at the time? Do you think it's odd now?

I suspected Panzer and BB at the time, and obviously didn't suspect myself. I found the arguments against me flawed, so it seemed more like he just understood the game the same way I did. Now, yes, it's interesting that he spared me, and I'm guessing he didn't expect me to turn on him later for it.

BB is voting me because scum protected me in game, which contradicts his stance on me earlier where I must have been scum for defending a townie.

I am with the cop on this one, and I still think that Zilla is scum. The fun part is her completely pathetic attack on me!

Vote Zilla

I advocate this lynch.

[Beyond_Birthday]

EBWOP: In case that wasn't clear, it was a revote/confirm vote.

[Beyond_Birthday]

BB, can you explain why Zilla's attack is pathetic, and address her claim that you contradicted yourself?

I'm attacking her, and I fail to see the contradication. Just in case, I will reread it again; maybe I missed a word or some flow of logic. (Thought my statement was agreeing with an unexpressed obvious feeling of others.)

[Beyond_Birthday]

BB is voting me because scum protected me in game, which contradicts his stance on me earlier where I must have been scum for defending a townie.

Person A suspects person B for protecting person A despite A's admitted scumminess where Person A is town. New day, Person A now attacks Person B because Person C, who flipped scum, didn't join the bandwagon against B although he did join a bandwagon when D and A looked scummy... *hm... let me see... I can't find a contradiction in Person A's argument. So:

B's "contradiction" doesn't exist.

Post 1296 is nonsense and lacks any flow of logic or reason.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Contradiction is that he said I must have been scum because I didn't buy goat's case and didn't jump on him, so I must be scum because I was buddying up to a townie. Now when Qwints doesn't buy goat's case and doesn't jump on me, I must be scumbuddies with him.

Basically, when I didn't jump on him, it was scum trying to buddy to town. When Qwints didn't jump on me, it was scum protecting a partner.

People play differently. Seriously, do you think I hold everyone to the same standard?

Qwints scum play: Buddy up to partner.

Zilla scum play: Buddy up to town.

Which leads to....
Um... two different styles of play by two different people.

There is not contradiction.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Indeed.^

[Beyond_Birthday]

Let's not do this.

Gieff, why do you think Mykonian deserves less inspection? Panzer, result.

People who have achieved 0% in my book:

Gieff

People at 15%

Sensfan

All other:
30-50%

Vote: Springlullaby

More than min. effort to tell me you're town would be lovely.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Your "min. effort."

[Beyond_Birthday]

I am voting you for your response to Gieff which greatly indicates: I'm not going to respond. I admitted my position was bad, an acknowledgment. You are slightly hinting at a blind faith belief that you're not scum. This is invalid, so I voted you.

[Beyond_Birthday]

So, you want me to agree with a specific point with Gieff so you can ignore that too? No.

[Beyond_Birthday]

I'm tracker. I tracked Gieff night one. He went no where. I tracked Sensfan last night. He also went no where, but flavor indicates that he may have done something I didn't see. Darkness and all that, but Gieff's was explicit in that I *saw* him n1. So:

That is why Gieff is 0% scum and Sensfan is 10% scum.

Everyone else is still, as I said, over 30%

Spring could be sk though...

Unvote

[Beyond_Birthday]

EBWOP: My tracker existence is why I was suspect of Panzer's results.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Umm. SL is innocent. Xtoxm shouldn't of claimed and for GIEFF, every two weeks I am primarily low access, because I get to see my girlfriend. This was that weekend, Sens(who I'm friends with) knew this and I wished he would of informed people.

I don't like how xtoxm is acting but he probably is telling the truth. I don't want anymore claims.

I agree sens is probably the right play. I'll wait a few before I vote him.

Also i didn't claim innocent because I didn't want a quickhammer.

This is a terrible idea. If I'm scum, Sens can't be. There is only one (supposedly) mafia left. If he's scum, I lied. In this scenario, I'm town aligned, and I wouldn't lie. Therefore, in both scenarios, Sens is primarily innocent.

SL isn't confirmed.

Xtorm is semi-confirmed.

I agree with SL's above post. Gieff should post.


Also, as a side note: Panzer, I forbid you from having your balls drained again, it has turned you into a blubbering idiot.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Ebwop:

BB, do you know if each mafia would show up as visiting their night kill? If you track scum-person A, and scum-person B is the one who PM's the mod, will scum-person A also show up as visiting the nightkill target?

I know if person A has left his/her house and who he/she visited.

[Beyond_Birthday]

No, no, quit, stop it, don't touch it, leave it alone, no, no, no and more NO.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?

Less than Gieff, Sensfan is the LAST person we should lynch. I've already proven logically that despite the "10%," he's the most cleared in book. And with Gieff explaining the possibility, Sense is more clear then him.

Beyond_Birthday Tracker (0%)* Can clear self for me.
Dourgrim VT (48%)
GIEFF VT (Odds at scum 21%)
Xtoxm Doctor (Odds at scum 12%)
mykonian Deputy (Odds at scum 47%
Panzerjager Cop (Odds at scum 12%)
springlullaby Vigilante (Odds of SK: 50%)
SensFan VT (Odds at scum 10%)

Lynch: Dourgrim; shoot Mykonian.
Leaves: 1sk, 1maf, 3 town. Cop/Tracker (both?) reports WILL result in a game win.
Mafia lynch, town shot.
2 town, 1sk (SL). Lynch SL for win.

Therefore:

Vote Dourgrim

[Beyond_Birthday]

EBWOP: To clarify, I'm saying that the cleared and whose left alive will most definitely end up in town win. In fact, maybe cop, vig, and tracker should be controlled tonight. Let the doc play wifom with the mafia, what do you guys think?

[Beyond_Birthday]

Game solved:
Day 3
BB Tracker
Xtoxm Doctor
mykonian Deputy
Panzerjager Cop
springlullaby Vigilante
SensFan VT
GIEFF VT
Dour VT <--Lynch

Night 3
BB Tracker Tracks a VT (Gieff in example)
Xtoxm Doctor Protects Cop
mykonian Deputy (is shot, dies)
Panzerjager Cop (investigates vig)
springlullaby Vigilante shoots mykonian
SensFan VT
GIEFF VT is tracked

Day 4

Possibility one:
Doc is killed:

Remaining:

Tracker
Cop
Vig
Vt
Vt

Vig is cleared, one VT is condemned/cleared, thus the obvious is:
Lynch uncleared VT, vig shoots cop. (Assumes tracker is town. However, I think that when the people who I've said went no where actually went no where, I can say that I'm cleared... *laughs* seriously though, to me this is won.)

Possibility 2: Tracker dies

Doc
Cop
Vig
VT
VT (lynched, unless vig is guilty by cop. If cop lies, we win as cop is mafia)
--> Night 4:
Doc protects Cop, Cop investigates VT, vig does nothing, and game is won. Whoever mafia kills is either vig or the doc. If Cop dies, doc is mafia. If vig dies, most likely, cop will hav necessary guilty on "VT" to win game, or innocent to prove the doc is lying.

Also, mafia can't just do nothing because then town will do nothing and gain investigations as cop slowly clears people or finds the guilty. If cop is mafia and we lose two peole to tomorrow (myk and Dour) we have 6 people, thus Cop cannot be mafia finding a false guilty without losing. Game's over in my book.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Same plan except night 1, Cop investigates me. That's a faster and more secure win. (Also, when I made it, it was on a white board without reference to who Panzer had cleared.)

[Beyond_Birthday]

(Repeated since people ignored it. Also, Serial killers usually come up neutral. I've never heard of a antimiller sk, but that isn't impossible, I guess.)
Game solved:
Day 3
BB Tracker
Xtoxm Doctor
mykonian Deputy
Panzerjager Cop
springlullaby Vigilante
SensFan VT
GIEFF VT
Dour VT <--Lynch

Night 3
BB Tracker Tracks a VT (Gieff in example)
Xtoxm Doctor Protects Cop
mykonian Deputy (is shot, dies)
Panzerjager Cop (investigates tracker)
springlullaby Vigilante shoots mykonian
SensFan VT
GIEFF VT is tracked

Day 4

Possibility one:
Doc is killed:

Remaining:

Tracker
Cop
Vig
Vt
Vt

Vig is cleared, one VT is condemned/cleared, thus the obvious is:
Lynch uncleared VT, vig shoots cop. (Assumes tracker is town. However, I think that when the people who I've said went no where actually went no where, I can say that I'm cleared... *laughs* seriously though, to me this is won.)

Possibility 2: Tracker dies

Doc
Cop
Vig
VT
VT (lynched, unless vig is guilty by cop. If cop lies, we win as cop is mafia)
--> Night 4:
Doc protects Cop, Cop investigates VT, vig does nothing, and game is won. Whoever mafia kills is either vig or the doc. If Cop dies, doc is mafia. If vig dies, most likely, cop will hav necessary guilty on "VT" to win game, or innocent to prove the doc is lying.

Also, mafia can't just do nothing because then town will do nothing and gain investigations as cop slowly clears people or finds the guilty. If cop is mafia and we lose two peole to tomorrow (myk and Dour) we have 6 people, thus Cop cannot be mafia finding a false guilty without losing. Game's over in my book.

Also: It would be better to lynch SL if you are all so worried about her non compliance with your plans. I may be wrong, but to me, she's cleared...

[Beyond_Birthday]

I am so happy I'm a deceitful bastard. Of course I revolted against the plan and did what I wanted:

Result: Mykonian visited xtoxm. Apparently, I fell on a bench, so I was stupid and dunno WHAT mykonian did, but given his role claim, I feel it's fairly obvious.

Vote Mykonian

Wow, didn't think you'd end up being scum, to be honest, but it makes sense once I cleared Gieff.

Speaking of which, let me be...stereotypical for a moment...
Mimicking the late Heath Ledger, takes a knife to the corners of your mouth:
Let's put a SMILE on that face of yours...

As a side note: *Lights a candle of incense for Spring Lullaby* Thanks for facilitating the end game victory. Now, without doubt, we have the murderer.

[Beyond_Birthday]

What do you mean you fell on a bench, B_B?

And why did you revolt against the plan?

I'm a genius. You are too, as well as Panzer. Seriously, I thought that Myko's language barrier was to blame, but I also knew I would get him sooner or later if scum, which is the real reason I revolted against my own plan. (It was all a ruse to make Myko go for it.)

Also, I mean that my flavor had it so that I was running after Myko, who I saw enter X's house, and then I apparently slipped, fell, hit a bench and was conked out till morning. Awesome.