Mini 749 - Antarctic Mafia [Game Over]

[Fishythefish]

/confirm

[Fishythefish]

Yes, I have to I'm wondering about the wisdom of a fish playing in a game full of penguins.

ZEEnon has 4 votes.

After a serious review of all the available evidence, the only sensible option is to....

Vote: na85

After all, he has as many letters in his name as numbers.

Exactly as many

. A serious scumtell in my book.

[Fishythefish]

EBWOP... that is supposed to mean, ZEEnon has 4 votes, and that seems plenty for the moment, if not a little on the generous side.

[Fishythefish]

Obviously, the recent attacks on me have been serious and grave, and deserve a full and thorough response. There are a few points I would like to make absolutely clear.
1. As Amished suggests, there isn't nearly enough of me to go round. Penguins eat fish whole, and there is no way 11 penguins can possibly share 1 fish.

So anyone wanting to kill a fish wants it all for themselves, hence is scum

2. It is well known that fish, like other animals, should be killed when in a state of happiness, so that their muscles are relaxed and the meat is more tender. It would be far more sensible to let me die peacefully.

So anyone wanting to lynch a fish is antitown

3. Penguins only eat live fish.

So anyone wanting to kill a fish is certainly not a penguin, hence is scum

4. Actually, the fish in the picture is a robot fish.

In light of this evidence, I fully expect those voting for me to:
1) Unvote me
2) Admit that they are scum
3) Vote for themselves
Anything else is merely prolonging the inevitable.

[Fishythefish]

Vote: Fishythefish

because he just seems fishy.

Obviously, the recent attacks on me have been serious and grave, and deserve a full and thorough response. There are a few points I would like to make absolutely clear.
1. As Amished suggests, there isn't nearly enough of me to go round. Penguins eat fish whole, and there is no way 11 penguins can possibly share 1 fish.

So anyone wanting to kill a fish wants it all for themselves, hence is scum

2. It is well known that fish, like other animals, should be killed when in a state of happiness, so that their muscles are relaxed and the meat is more tender. It would be far more sensible to let me die peacefully.

So anyone wanting to lynch a fish is antitown

3. Penguins only eat live fish.

So anyone wanting to kill a fish is certainly not a penguin, hence is scum

4. Actually, the fish in the picture is a robot fish.

In light of this evidence, I fully expect those voting for me to:
1) Unvote me
2) Admit that they are scum
3) Vote for themselves
Anything else is merely prolonging the inevitable.

Less arguing, more getting in mah belleh. OM NOM NOM NOM

Here is JereIC, completely changing his reason for voting for me! At first, he says I am a bit fishy, but when other players bring up another line of argument, he jumps on it, even after I have clearly demonstrated that it is nonsense! What is this, if not trying to force through a townie lynch, with no thought for logic, reason or debate?
At this point I think JereIC is obvscum. There is no need for a claim- I cannot think of a claim which could make me think about lynching anyone else. The only question that remains, before we lynch this vile scum, is who his partner(s) are. One, I think, is obvious- ZEEnon. It has struck me throughout that these two players are very carefully and deliberately

completely avoiding ANY contact with one another

. Add this to the excellent points Drake has recently made against ZEEnon, and I think we have tomorrow's lynch.

[Fishythefish]

I would like to make it completely clear to ZEEnon and JereIC that my last post was not intended to be taken seriously. I had not thought there would be confusion on this point.

[Fishythefish]

I think it is important that we don't get too fixated on the issue that has arisen. I think, as others do, that ZEEnon overreacted to the RVS, but currently I don't really find either that overreaction or Nuwen's attack all that scummy. It seems overwhelmingly likely we are about to get into a horrible tunnelled town vs town episode.
Incidentally, my impression was that the baddies wouldn't be penguins. It was the word "predators" that did it.

[Fishythefish]

ZEEnon overreacted to joke votes, and gathered some real suspicion- to my mind, his overreaction is not very scummy. I agree that DDD’s vote on him looks pretty bad. The only use for that as scum would be if he genuinely thought that his attackers could be lynch for their joke votes, which doesn’t seem at all likely. I personally support the RVS as the only effective way to start a game.

The “slip” and the “slip in pointing out the slip” both seem pretty much irrelevant. If there was anything to be gained from this, it is that freeko stretches quite a long way in saying that the latter was a slip.

After the “glass houses” thing, DDD was attacked for using it to “prove” he was town. This was never meant to be taken seriously, as he says here:

1) Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
2) I'm indicting someone for terrible play.
3) Drake is therefore insinuating my play is terrible.
4) Via my syllogism which he quoted to use accepting it as fact because otherwise his jab doesn't work; terrible play is town play.
5) Therefore I am town.

Careful with linear logic, kids. Drake's comment snarkily called your play terrible and did nothing to prove your generalization that terrible play equals a terrible

town

player. This is an inverted strawman - you're attempting to prove the statement "I'm terrible, I'm town" after assuming "terrible play -> universally been terrible town play" is an axiom. The only truism here is "terrible play equals terrible play." Hinging DDD's statement on "so far" deconstructs the statement's endurance even further in practice - if terrible play is qualified as town-only play 'thus far,' WIFOM is established for any future terrible play. Great door to create.

I don't like this contrived attempt to prove alignment.

I agree (there's that terrible scumtell again, freeko). It was utterly contrived because it was merely a way to throw Drake's

insult

back at him. I contend my play isn't terrible and thus the whole syllogism is a moot point anyways.

I think this attack is another stretch from freeko, going too hard after a light-hearted post. All in all, I think freeko’s attack on DDD is overdone.

Mizz.Mafia, you should try to play an active role in the game, which includes reading all the posts and forming opinions on the other players. Anything less is bad for the town.

Light-kun’s attack on na is frankly bizarre- na thanked another player for general information, and L-k attacked him for it, presumably without having read the thread properly- not terribly impressive really.

Because I think his attacks are contrived,

vote: freeko

[Fishythefish]

EBWOP:

unvote, vote: freeko

[Fishythefish]

Seems like a slip

Here is an applcation of WIFOM. This could only be a slip if you had inforation to know that it was infact either a slip or not a slip. There is no posted vanilla claim so you cannot know if you are a penguin or not unless your role says as much. This could be the beginning symptoms of "perfect information syndrome" as well, where the scum have all the information of their rooles and can share that amongst themselves.

I am more weary of those who attempt to point out a slip this early in the game than those who potentially made the slip. im gonna be watching you, drake. I think it is you who may have made the slip by pointing ourt that someone ekse had made a slip.

I think that this attack is entirely unconvincing, and, yes "contrived", by which I mean a stretch. You later retracted it to some extent, but you still posted it, and I struggle to see why.

I really think you gotta go at this point. Your little I am town WIFOM play is just another nail in your coffin as I see it. For those who missed it post #109 will reveal all. For me you have made 2 mistakes. The first was just your attempt to buddy up to me by outright agreeing with my post. That is something I dont like, especially when no other perspective or narrative is given. Its totally worthless at that point. The second is the "I am terrible therefore I am town" WIFOM smoke screen you created with post #109.

It was utterly contrived because it was merely a way to throw Drake's insult back at him. I contend my play isn't terrible and thus the whole syllogism is a moot point anyways.

WIFOM.. and more of it. You only seem to want to wrap yourself in a WIFOM web. Here you go again, irreguardless of your play being terrible in your eyes or not. It is the evaluation of others interpretation of your play that matters equally so.

I think the saying goes something like: Its a tangled web we weave, when it is the intent to deceive?

Though I do understand the intent to retort drake by trying to turn the insult back at him. Wouldnt a better play have been to just ignore it?

The quote in my above post was intended to illustrate that DDD did not mean his WIFOM proof of innocence- which I think was totally clear. Because of this, your attacks on him for this reason seemed, again, a stretch. Incidentally, I have no problem with your attack on him for buddying.

I think two of your posts have been rather flawed. Sorry I didn't quote them back at you when saying this. I certainly didn't say anywhere that you were "obviously scum", as you say in your post- and I don't think that. I merely think that, on the little information we have, you are as good a candidate as any, and would ask you not to put such extreme words into my mouth.

[Fishythefish]

[On DDD's response to Dtf's insult]

The whole thing could have been avouided by simply ignoring the issue. That he chose to approach it inthe way he did should tell you something.

Sure. When somebody insulted DDD jokingly (as in with no serious evidence or accusation), ignoring it would have been a valid response. DDD instead gave a joking reply- to me this seems just as valid.

[Fishythefish]

Light-kun, in your percentages, Amished and I follow your two explained suspects by a mere couple of percents, at 6% clear of the approximate baseline. You haven't mentioned either of our names yet, and we happen to be two of the very few other players who have criticised you. Can you explain your suspicions?

I don't like this from DDD:

Wouldnt a better play have been to just ignore it?

I agree. Cute logic battles are fun, but shouldn't take precedence over actual scum-hunting. If you're retorting simply to retort, you're at best creating spurious fluff that convolutes the game and detracts attention away from actual tells. Worse still, this distraction can be interpreted as an anti-town attempt to disrupt focus.

Conceded and apologies to the town for the distracting post in that case. However I'd like to remind the town that mine was the response to an equally distracting and useless insult from Drake. I'd hate for him not to get his credit for his part in this fiasco.

Blaming someone else for your distracting play is scummy. This is noted. Also noted is that you fail to actually contribute in this post, and your circular logic from the other pages doesn't help your case.

A) I took the blame for my part in the action.
B) I was not the only one involved, but felt Drake's role in the incident was being overlooked because I was around and willing to talk about the issue. I don't feel I should be indicted simply for posting a lot and I don't believe someone should be given a pass for not being around.

C) How is this post not helpful? If I'm scum I'm either early bussing or trying to frame an innocent. If I'm town I'm showing a potential trap set by scum or maybe it's one big misunderstanding. If I'm killed in some fashion or cleared by a cop then it provides you a wealth of information about my relationship with Drake. It might not be useful this second, but long term it's plenty useful if you know how to use it.

D) The circular logic thing is a tired argument at this point, either you believe me that I was making a joke responding to a joking insult or you're

an idiot

convinced that I'm an idiot because only an idiot would've made that post in seriousness.

LK, you had no problem joining in with the parade of calling my tongue-in-cheek "circular logic" post unhelpful at best. Yet, later you unhelpfully bait na85 in a "tongue-in-cheek" name-calling move. Hypocrisy? Looks like it from here.

My problem is with the bold bit (my bold). I'm not saying, as L-k seems to imply, that every post has to provide new information- there is nothing wrong with response and it's often appropriate to acknowledge other people's arguments and/or your mistakes. However, it is a bit of a stretch to say that a post is useful because in the overall context it can be used to create links between you and drake- townies don't need to conciously create or not create links, and this should not be your intention while voting.

On the other hand, I agree that the "circular logic" post has been done to death, if not further.

[Fishythefish]

Fish, I will only respond to you at the moment: You seem to have indicated, either subconsciously or unintentionally, something that I feel should be considered a bit of an assumption. It could, also, be a jest, but this mark is one of the few telling comments I've seen. I'm not going to comment on it just yet as I need to reread that post to decide and look at your play in isolation.

How exciting for me, I can't wait . If this helps: my remark was not a jest, except to some extent the accusation of omgus. I feel that fairly large differences between players' scumminess need explaining- particularly when the differences between players you have criticised repeatedly and players you have never mentioned is tiny. I would like such an explanation soon.

Cutting down on the quote pyramid...

1) Did my post supply you with more information for the future?
2) Does it not help the town to have more information?

You say the town doesn’t need to purposefully create links and maybe it’s true, but does it hurt the town to do so? I don’t think so; I think the more information provided the better.

I think you're most bothered by my transparency because it is a bit unconventional. However, as I’ve noted before I think it’s an asset to the town, not a detriment. Scum have to lie and deceive to win the game, the town need to uncover the truth, if I don’t worry about appearances and simply present the facts as I see them then the town will benefit from one less layer of bullshit to cut through.

1) Excellent quote pyramid culling.
2) Transparency is excellent. I'm not suggesting you should conciously avoid making links to other players- however, you suggested this making such links was the

purpose

of your post- and townies don't need to conciously create links. Indeed, by artificially taking the decision to make a link, you remove the usefulness of the link- it will no longer be your natural response to a player. The position of "my post was useful because it creates links" doesn't explain you posting it in the first place. Also, as Amished says, links at this stage are only really useful if it's scum (or other informed players) making them- and any purposeful link would be drowned by WIFOM

This probably doesn't need saying, but at this point it's fairly certain Mizz_Mafia was entirely genuine, and that Mizz_Mafia's replacement should be treated as if she never existed.

[Fishythefish]

Mizz_Mafia's replacement should be treated as if she never existed.

You think so? I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

I think you should judge a role by all the players who play it.

Indeed. I only meant that, in this instance, I think it's clear than Mizz_Mafia was genuine in her lack of understanding of the game, and that there is nothing to judge the role by so far.

[Fishythefish]

I entirely agree with Nuwen that being defensive is not a scum tell. Defense is a necessary part of the game for a townie, when you are being attacked, and DDD's lack of scumhunting is entirely unsurprising.

Well sure, apparently me playing with my content filter off looks to the rest of you like scum making 86,000 mistakes instead of a simply different play style. Furthermore, if freeko is any example the status quo is to ignore and evade any arguments made against you instead of taking them head on like I prefer to do which does in fact only seem to get me into more trouble as this post surely will, won't stop me from making them though.

I know at least some of you are you going to yell WIFOM because while it is, it's also easier than actually doing some actual content analysis. Check my one completed game here. As scum I deftly put myself into a position to win only blown in endgame by a terrible partner.

I can play with more subtlety than the bull in a china shop technique I've taken on. Now I already hear some of you crying, "but you're just playing this way so you can pull out this argument and try and reverse field", but why would I abandon a winning strategy to instead draw everyone's attention and criticism so I could then later pull-out a wacky WIFOMy argument such as this? It's nonsensical.

I agree that this would be nonsensical. However, perhaps you weren't trying to be less subtle, but made some mistakes and made things worse trying to get out of them? Just because you do something well once doesn't mean you will be able to repeat it in another game. Your argument can be summarised "when I'm scum, I'm not scummy. I'm scummy- therefore I am not scum". This is not a valid explanation of why you are scummy. I feel you are trying to use dodgy arguments to justify your play.

JereIC also makes very good points about your modifying of things that you say later.

unvote, vote DDD

(4th vote! Forget DDD, that makes me scum! LYNCH TIME!!!!!)

[Fishythefish]

(4th vote! Forget DDD, that makes me scum! LYNCH TIME!!!!!)

What are you doing? Did DDD ever even say that? Pointing out your behavior as "suspicious" in an attempt to head off suspicion indicates a clear lack of confidence in what you're doing and/or substandard reasons for doing it, which the rest of your post doesn't brush up against at all.

This was mostly a joke, because there had been recent talk of the "4th vote is scum" meta, which I find rather absurd. It was only intended to head off suspicion directed at this vote specifically because it was a 4th vote. All votes should be treated on the explanations for them, which is unrelated to their position.

[Fishythefish]

Fish, I will only respond to you at the moment: You seem to have indicated, either subconsciously or unintentionally, something that I feel should be considered a bit of an assumption. It could, also, be a jest, but this mark is one of the few telling comments I've seen. I'm not going to comment on it just yet as I need to reread that post to decide and look at your play in isolation.

How's the rumination going?

freeko's last post is unimpressive. He should at the very least acknowledge the arguments made against him in 225, and not doing so adds enormously to the "freeko is ignoring my arguments" statement from DDD. As well as totally ignoring the attack against him, he also says nothing new, but parrots arguments already put forward by other players and himself. This looks particularly bad because one of them- lack of scumhunting- has now been to some extent invalidated. To my mind, this post looks as if freeko decided to post against DDD, then scraped around for some arguments, rather than attacking DDD because he has some arguments against him. This could be motivated either by a desire to be seen to be making arguments (anti-town, as it leads to bad arguments), by tunnel vision on DDD (anti-town) or by a desire for a quick lynch (scummy). Whichever it is, I don't like it.

[Fishythefish]

I disagree with the recent criticism of DDD for wanting to survive. Sure, a lynch of a townie can be beneficial, but this rare, rarer if planned, and there is no obvious reason this one is. If DDD is a townie, at this stage he should prefer anyone else to die other than him, since anyone else could be scum. My lynch would be my least favourite today- can anyone honestly say different? (

sets a cunning trap for jesters!

)

[Fishythefish]

I agree that freeko's position has turned into a nonsense. freeko, you need to seriously reconsider your position on DDD. You are suffering from extreme confirmation bias, in which you automatically see DDD's posts nonsense. 262 reads like it is a token attempt to look like you are open-minded, without any actual intention of reconsidering your position. You are actively harming your case against DDD. You read like a scum desperately trying to get a townie lynched, or a hopelessly tunnelled townie.

unvote, vote freeko

[Fishythefish]

Perhaps I missed something, but this made no sense to me.

I believe you missed post 77.

[Fishythefish]

I think freeko is attempting to reposition us to voting for him because of his aggressive play-style, rather than for his tunnel vision, unwillingess to listen to reason and general anti-town play. I am certain freeko is a horribly anti-town player, and think there is a very good chance he is scum.

[Fishythefish]

What with the main suspects being dead, this game needs a proper reread. I'll catch up some time tomorrow.
For now- not much point in lots of information discussion, but a DDD kill does not look like a scum kill. More likely a vig, or a SK hunting for scum.
Oh, and to clarify one thing- I did think we were in a penguins vs. other things situation, because of the flavour at the beginning- it mentioned penguins a lot, and, when referring to mafia, mentioned "predators".

[Fishythefish]

So, reading through the thread again I can't say anything leaps out at me. Thoughts on a couple of players receiving attention at the moment:

Light-kun

I agree with Nuwen that his vote is bad. The implication behind it is much worse than a random vote- he appears to be saying that he has picked a player, and will then try to construct a case on them. It is also true that his change of stance on DDD does look a little odd- when moving to attacking DDD's attacker, his opinion on DDD seems to change dramatically.
The initial percentages have now been explained; however, in the new ones, I still have an elevated percentage. There is still no explanation for this, beyond an incredibly weak and old one that I explained. I really think if you are going to make lists like this, they should be explained more thoroughly. Otherwise you are just throwing out random accusations with no reason.

Zeenon

Yes, Zeenon overreacted hugely to joke votes/posts. However, I don't really see this as a scum tell- townies can overreact as well. The point that he tried to make safe posts from then on is a valid one, and does point to zeenon actively trying to avoid attention.

And there was this strange little post directed to Light-kun:

i agree with the rest of your points, so i didn't address them or else it would be seen as me agreeing with you too much and/or me just posting for the sake of posting.

That just struck me as odd, as it looks like ZEEnon either trying to explain to his scum partner why/how he had screwed up or, alternatively, trying to

appear

to be explaining to his scum partner why/how he had screwed up, i.e. buddying up to Light-kun.

This post by ZEEnon is an open admission he is trying to avoid looking scummy, but I don't see it as anything more than that myself.
Jazz's impression of ZEEnon is scum who couldn't take the heat; I agree with the latter, but not so sure of the scum bit.

[Fishythefish]

The percentage I wanted explained was my own.

I have a problem with L-k's last post in that it twice uses the line "I did it to get reactions";

I elevated (read "lied") to see his reaction.

I planned on demonstrating my case alter and I typed arbitrary to see how people would react. Didn't get much from it though. Oh well.

I also find it extraordinary that your first reaction to someone not agreeing with a case is to label them as a possible scumpartner of the attacked player. It looks like you intend to make me agree with you lest I be labelled ZEEnon's scumpartner.

vote: Light-kun

[Fishythefish]

Sorry, in my last post I didn't explain myself:

I have a problem with L-k's last post in that it twice uses the line "I did it to get reactions";

Was meant to be accompanied by... which is a claim I always find very suspect. It can be used by the mafia to justify any behaviour, and so when it's not obviously true, like here, it is scummy.

[Fishythefish]

Analysis of L-k's claim:
- Obviously, L-k killed DDD. The risk of a vig counterclaim would be too big.
- I doubt that L-k is scum. DDD would have been a really strange kill.
- He could be SK.
- His claim stacks up; his provocative play and withdrawal on DDD fit with vig.
All in all, I believe the claim, and the scenario where L-k is a SK isn't so bad.

unvote

[Fishythefish]

Interesting point. However, for me vig makes more sense for L-k's play at the beginning of the day than SK. SK wouldn't want to draw attention to the possibility of that role, particularly when they are very likely going to want to claim vig at some point. As a vig, the play can be explained by a rather overdone distancing attempt. As I said before, I don't think mafia makes sense for DDD's kill.

[Fishythefish]

The Response: This is too easily (in my mind) accepted. Also, it is too well explained.

The Problem: I can't see a scum team taking this kind of a chance, especially with this evidence for an easy linkage, during D2.

I agree with Fishythefish that a SK would probably not come out with a claim like this and that the kill doesn't fit a scum nor SK pattern.

So in essence, you think my acceptance of his claim is too well thought out, but agree with this thinking. In my response post you don't like, what is there you actually disagree with? What do you think L-k's role is?

Why claim then is a good question.

[Fishythefish]

I agree with the

parts

of your response that I noted. As far as your acceptance of it, I see that you could
1) be part of a scum team trying to pull a gambit (least likely)
2) honestly accept it at face value (naive)
3) be scum setting up a "I told you so" (not sure)

I just don't know whether to believe the claim or not. He could be the Vig, he could be a SK (although I think bringing yourself into the spotlight like this would be quite detrimental to your win condition), he could be scum, he could be vanilla attempting to draw a NK. There are a lot of possible scenarios.

I have to say I hadn't thought of 3) as a possible motive for anything. Since when is being right a towntell? I never said I took his claim at face value. On analysis, I think that it's likely to be true, as the other scenarios are unlikely for various reasons, and that the second most likely scenario (SK) doesn't need immediate attention. Him being a vanilla seems very unrealistic- think how he'll look when the real vig counterclaims the DDD kill. I don't think DDD was a scum kill (oh, and another reason for this is the manner of death- as someone noted, red circle = gunshot = man with a gun = SK or vig, probably. Particularly since, in the flavour, "Predators about....a..a...a mafia", suggests that the mangled carcass is the scum kill, and DDD the vig/SK kill.)

[Fishythefish]

I'm at L-4, and you question why I would reveal my role?

I think you mean L-2? That's what you reached.

This is an easily testable claim. Today, we're going to pick two lynch targets. One will be vigged. We can lynch LK prior to entering LYLO if everyone is still concerned about him still being an SK. An SK that plays along with the town will find his win condition very hard to meet in the endgame; either way, town gains an extra kill. If he doesn't vig our consensus targets, we kill him the next day. I don't want to use today's lynch to test his claim - if LK really is a vig, he'll probably be nightkilled in the upcoming day or two.

My problem with picking two lynch targets is it is very good for the mafia if they have a roleblocker- they roleblock if and only if LK is hitting one of them. If LK is a SK, he will surely be shooting for scum at this stage (even if we lynch scum that looks like the right move for him)? For this reason, I'd be tempted to let him choose his target. Note that if LK is really a SK, he'll still probably be nightkilled in the upcoming day or two, as the scum can't tell between the two, and don't like SK's anyway.
Overall, I think if we ask any doctors out there not to protect LK, the risk he poses to the town is minimal, and we should let him act alone for now.

[Fishythefish]

p.s.,

FoS

in Fishy's direction. It's very anti-town to suggest that a kill ability not be handed over to the control of consensus. The only reasons to support sovereign kills from LK:

1. Second scum team pair, attempting to free themselves from town-dictated kills.

2. Absolute trust in LK's judgment.

The former is plausible, the latter is naive.

3. As I've already stated; to keep the scum in the dark.
I haven't run across this situation before. Perhaps it accepted wisdom, but I don't think it's clear that it is anti-town not to hand over a known kill ability; yes, maybe the town will choose better targets than L-k alone, but we have the disadvantage of having to declare our intentions. I don't have to have absolute trust in L-k; as long as he has the same motives as us, he can make slightly worse decisions than the town as a whole, and the result is still better.
In what situation do you think the town's interests and L-k's interests will not be aligned tonight?

[Fishythefish]

Sure. And in a situation where he was credibly going to kill out of motives other than scumhunting, of course we should pick the kill/no kill. But while his interests coincide with the town (as seems almost certain here, for tonight at least), why is it necessary?

[Fishythefish]

Yes, I understand that. I just think the likelihood of his interests not aligning with ours tonight is so slight that we would do better to let him kill independently. However, if others are worried that he might not want to kill scum tonight, then of course we should pick the kill.

[Fishythefish]

Interesting analysis.
I disagree a little about Howard's unvote. Acknowledging the possibility of the lynchee being town isn't in itself suspect- you are never going to be 100% sure of anything. Howard's stated reason in this case, to give freeko a chance to contribute, is not entirely implausible, and if this was a distancing attempt, it is certainly, as you say, weird.

About 2); I'm sure we all considered the possibility that freeko was just that sort of townie. After 276, freeko made a lot of posts which suggested that he was probably scum rather than a scum's dream townie. freeko looked more and more like a scum trying to get a lynch.

On 3)- I'm not sure I understand. I didn't make an L-5 vote, and my L-6 vote was much earlier than the wagon and I don't think it was referenced again?

There is a problem with your theory that both wagons were shoved along by scum. By maybe post 230, it was clear that DDD or freeko was likely to be lynched. From here, the scum's only strategy would be to act as normally as possible, and to join one or other of the wagons for a decent reason. In particular, they had no reason to move from a DDD wagon to a freeko wagon.

We should either pick the kill or not kill at all. Fishy, why on earth would you want him acting independently?

I've explained this. I think that if our motives align with his (ie. if he wants to kill scum), we'd be better off letting him pick the kill, so the scum have less information for killing/roleblocking him. I think that our motives are extremely likely to align with his.

[Fishythefish]

Another typo I'm afraid . 212 is me switching from freeko to DDD. 230 is the post of L-k's you mean.

[Fishythefish]

If Fishy was on the Danny wagon at L-3 and then swapped to Freeko, I think that fishy is scum.

Why do you think I am scum based on this swap, given that both wagons were on townies?

And while Nuwen has made errors, Fishy seems unconfortable with the analysis, as though he fears the possible conclusion of Fishy=scum. Sure, town would too, but I might just be reading too much into it.

Well, if you think I disagree with the analysis simply because it fingers me (as well as two other players) as more likely scum, then that is scummy. In fact, I just don't see Nuwen's logic for thinking that the late switchers are more likely scum. My other disagreement was over point 3), which I think is factually wrong.

Also, if Drake the Fake is scum, Nuwen is scum. They look connected.

Really? Please elaborate.

A note on vote analysis: L-k here thinks I am scum based solely on a vote- apparently independently of context. Myself, I think think my switch was both justified and explained. I think it is likely that the reason the DDD wagon turned into a freeko wagon was because during day 1

DDD got less scummy and freeko got more scummy

.

Jazz- I'll be very surprised if scum, but this is not impossible.

It seems very early to be making such certain statements.

Note that L-k's mafia prisoner's dilemma relies on the serial killer knowing the identity of the mafia (as well as vice-versa, but this is already true). If this is unknown, the townies chance of winning is 50%, as is the mafia's. The point that the serial killer has thrown the game still stands.

[Fishythefish]

Limited access notice

Due to internet jiggery-pokery, I'm going to have limited access for the next 10 days or so. I don't really know how limited, but I may be absent for a couple of days at a time. I'll try to catch up whenever I can.
Sorry about that.

Your are excused, momentarily. -Mod

[Fishythefish]

I think that DDD's wagon is more interesting than freeko's. By the time freeko's got rolling in any serious way, it was clear that he or DDD would be lynched, and scum have an easy time sitting back and voting for the scummier of the two. If there is scum impetus behind a wagon, it is most likely either right at the beginning of freeko's or at any point on DDD's wagon. After this of course scum may have joined/moved wagons, but probably not in a way which is different from a townie.

Of course, a vote at any stage without a good justification is scummy. But this argument is more compelling when there is a scummy reason for the vote, and yesterday this was truer towards the start of the day.

I can go with Fishythefish starting the freeko BW, hopping off to get the Debonair Danny DePietro wagon going, and then hopping back onto the middle of the freeko wagon to ride it out through the end of the day as freeko dug his hole deeper.

I can't really be accused of getting the freeko bandwagon going. My vote was for different reasons to all the other votes on him, including my later vote, and is pretty much unrelated to the bandwagon on him. I think you are clouded by hindsight; at the time, freeko was under no kind of pressure, and this is no more an attempt to bandwagon than any other first vote on a player. As I've expressed above, can't see a reason to think that hops from DDD to freeko are particularly scummy votes. The part of my voting pattern most worthy of attention is definitely my vote on DDD. This is the most beneficial vote of the three for scum by far, and merits attention; I suggest you look at the post and other posts I had made on DDD, and decide whether or not you think I justified it sufficiently.

[Fishythefish]

I think the fact that you view the end of yesterday as a two-horse race, period, is probably as bad for you as your wagon switch.

Why? For a long time yesterday there really were only two realistic lynches.

[Fishythefish]

...don't let me forget to respond to your point about the paired wagons...

----

It is interesting that jere, dtf and I overlap on 3 wagons. However, I really don't follow the logic which suggests that these players are more likely scum than others, except that we were on the DDD wagon at its critical phase. As I've said, without much response, the late period of day 1 was one where scum just had to vote for the scummier of DDD and freeko, and so I feel there is little to be got from vote analysis here. L-k's play this morning was (apparently deliberately) extremely odd, and it is unsurprising he got a mini wagon.

[Fishythefish]

If Fishy was on the Danny wagon at L-3 and then swapped to Freeko, I think that fishy is scum.

Why do you think I am scum based on this swap, given that both wagons were on townies?

It is because both were town that this is useful and implicates you. You seem to say here that you are not scum as both were town. But if you were town, would you have not presented a new case or tried to expand your thoughts. As vig, I knew I could kill two birds instead of one. So, my suspect (or someone like DDD who threw me for a loop) could easily be eliminated. You don't have this power and still seem to be subtly looking for the more scummy since, if scum, you would know who is/isn't a townie.

(obvious correction made)
1) Minor point- you seem to be saying I think my switch a towntell. I am not arguing this, I am arguing it is null (as a vote alone- case analysis is a different matter).
2) I don’t quite understand. You are saying I should have tried to present a new case or expand my thoughts. At that time, we had two players who were by far and away scummier than all the others. I made my thoughts on these players clear. Your last sentence I don’t understand. If you are saying that I was subtly looking for the scummier of DDD and freeko, you are right except for the word subtly. I wanted to lynch the scummier of the two scummiest players, as they were the most likely to be scum. This is pretty much the point I’ve been making for a while now- scum and town alike would vote for the scummier of DDD and freeko from the middle of day 1 (assuming town thought one or other of them were scummy).

And while Nuwen has made errors, Fishy seems unconfortable with the analysis, as though he fears the possible conclusion of Fishy=scum. Sure, town would too, but I might just be reading too much into it.

Well, if you think I disagree with the analysis simply because it fingers me (as well as two other players) as more likely scum, then that is scummy. In fact, I just don't see Nuwen's logic for thinking that the late switchers are more likely scum. My other disagreement was over point 3), which I think is factually wrong.

1. Why are you not denying it and just agreeing with it as a possibility?
2. Well, arbitrarily (and based somewhere from experience), people tend to think that certain parts of a wagon are more likely to be scum based on the person's play style, manner of the switch of vote, etc.
3. I forget what you're claiming is factually wrong. May look at this later.

1. I don’t understand where you are coming from on this one. I am denying Nuwen’s logic, I don’t think his conclusion that the people who switched later are likely to be scum is valid.
2. I certainly agree that judging scum based on play style and manner of switch is valid- on the other hand, if you are saying that certain parts of wagons always contain more scum, I disagree. You have to look at the circumstances of the wagon- and in the case where there are two realistic lynches, both townies, I don’t think late voters look any worse than early ones.
3. Not very important.

Not really. Serial killer should always rationalize that killing the mafia is better because he cannot win if mafia lives. Mafia should think the same thing. As a result, Prisoner's dilemma is a theoretical town win. (This assumes mafia cannot no kill and sk doesn't have a vest.)

You misunderstand- you also assume the SK knows the mafia. Unimportant.

I think that DDD's wagon is more interesting than freeko's. By the time freeko's got rolling in any serious way,

This is where you joined....which you exclude. Okay, go on.

it was clear that he or DDD would be lynched,

Maybe for fear of being called out on it but did anyone actually claim this? Why not make a case on someone else?

Covering both these points- I feel that before I joined freeko’s wagon, freeko’s aggressive attacks on DDD made it highly likely that one of the two would be lynched. No other player was close to them in scumminess. No, noone said this yesterday. Why not make a case on someone else? Well of course I was looking at other players, and thinking about the possibility that neither of the main suspects might be scum. But there was no-one approaching these two in scumminess.

and scum have an easy time sitting back and voting for the scummier of the two.

Which would then include the later of Freeko's (or DDD's) wagon.

Yes. If the scum weren’t on these wagons to start with, it was easy for them to join. Alternatively, if townies weren’t on these wagons to start with, it was the right thing to do to join when they thought freeko/DDD was scummy. This comes back, again, to the point that late on day 1 the sensible courses of actions for both townies and scum were the same- since the scum's sole concern was to vote like a townie, vote analysis becomes pretty useless.

If there is scum impetus behind a wagon, it is most likely either right at the beginning of freeko's or at any point on DDD's wagon.

Particularly with the Freeko wagon, why are you not making a case? You're just stating opinion while being mildly amiable to everyone. Nuwen isn't in this game to do all the work you know.

Agreed that serious case analysis needs to be done. I will do this, when I have more time (this will happen, it could be a few more days though). However, I think this is slightly oddly targeted- in day 2, there has been practically zero case analysis, and a lot of vote analysis, in which I have been disagreeing with other players. It seems odd to accuse me of being “mildly amiable” and attacking me for not doing something that noone in the town has done. As for stating opinion, Nuwen has in affect labelled three players as scummier than the others. I disagree. This seems pretty important, and so I'm arguing my side.

After this of course scum may have joined/moved wagons, but probably not in a way which is different from a townie.

So, you're either saying townie would be just as scummy in hopping or scum would be just as innocent in hopping. Meh.... I see specious reasoning here. Where's the proof? The back up? *Ding* IRONY! (Is referring to self, shut up.)

I have explained my position on this multiple times, before you made your post and in this post. "Proof"? I am pointing out what I perceive to be a flaw in Nuwen's reasoning. Proof does not come into it. You are attacking me in an absurd way, isolating statements which do not stand alone, and ignoring my explanations and arguments.

You are telling me this for what purpose?

I was trying to express my opinion that vote analysis is most useful in conjunction with case analysis. There had been no case analysis done yet and I felt the vote analysis that had been done to be lacking.

This entire reason reads as bullshit.

That’s really helpful. I disagree- can you point out where you don’t agree with me and why, wherever you haven’t already covered that point?


@ Howard; my main point about my first vote for freeko is that, if you read it only in the context of what had happened when I made it (rather than all that followed it), it no more looks like an attempt to bandwagon than any other first vote for a player.

[Fishythefish]

I agree that so far today I have "been lazy", if by that you mean I haven't provided a good case against anyone. Yesterday I was not- but noone was even close to being scummier than the person I was voting for, or had enough against them to make a case worthwhile.

I agree when I vote on the DDD wagon is passive, but I think the posts I had made on him were good enough justification. On freeko- while the 4th vote here is passive than the others, as scum I would have no particular reason for making that vote. So yes this is passive, but here it's not scummy.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy, in 433 you say you wouldn't have had reason to vote for Freeko if you scum. First off, wifom, no? Secondly, wouldn't the reason be lynching a townie? Not everything has to be part of an intricate strategy.

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that the reason I would have for voting freeko as scum would only apply if I thought he was the scummiest player. I'm certainly not claiming my vote is a towntell, and so wifom doesn't come into it.

As for the reason being lynching a townie; when I voted for freeko, I changed the vote situation from 4 for DDD, 3 for freeko to the other way around. This doesn't get the scum any closer to a lynch on a townie, unless I think that freeko is going to be easier to lynch than DDD; ie. that freeko is scummier than DDD. So yes, as scum I would have had a reason for switching, but only if I genuinely thought freeko was scummier than DDD. In other words, my switch is not useful for telling my alignment.

I have returned from the land of limited access. I'll now be posting more often and providing some actual analysis.

[Fishythefish]

On DraketheFake:
He is very involved in the random vote stage. He makes a joke vote against ZEEnon, who doesn’t get the joke, and DtF carries on pressing. This is all well and good except this:

There's 4 votes, Mr. non (5 if we're using Fishy's math). A claim seems prescient. Maybe even cogent.

Now, normally this could be dismissed completely as part of Drake’s joke/random vote. However, 4 votes is quite a lot at this stage in the game. ZEEnon clearly thought the votes on him were real votes. I think the risk of ZEEnon actually claiming was small, but it was big enough to make Drake’s post unwise for a townie. There’s a possibility that he was scum taking a long shot on getting a claim, and able to easily disown his post as a joke if that happened.

Seems like a slip, because for all intents and purposes I was under the impression that the Mafia would also be penguins. You seem to imply knowledge that they aren't penguins, which would be unfortunate for you, but I think I may have started it by calling everybody "gentlepenguins" so I'll let it go for now.

Funny thing to bother saying- DtF points out a possible slip, but doesn’t call this slip scummy. This paragraph seems simply to be vessel for the claim of town.

DtF also votes DDD in this post- I think his reasoning here is just fine. He continues to attack DDD for a long time- when he mentions other players, it is generally to counter their points.

I do not like the manner of DtF’s switch to freeko. Commenting on my vote here:

You are actively harming your case against DDD.

You read like a scum desperately trying to get a townie lynched, or a hopelessly tunnelled townie.

Ugh. This this this.

But I don't know that I agree with your vote. It seems that both instances are equally likely, and freeko is the sort of hypothetical townie that a scum being wagoned love to have pop up. Which isn't a strike against DDD, obviously, but these sorts of interactions are rarely good for the town unless he really is just a scum playing in a bizarre fashion.

It isn’t clear what makes DtF change his mind about this. He unvotes in the same post, and here his read is that freeko could well be simply a tunnelled townie. His next post, 283 is the only one in which we get any clue about how this read changes. He starts by saying freeko is not player he enjoys playing with. His second point could equally have been made in 276- nothing has changed. The third similarly- freeko had been offering “glittering generalities” for a long time. Nothing has really changed since he read freeko as equally likely a tunnelled townie or scum. Less still changes before DtF finally votes freeko:

No, instead I am perfectly fine with being lynched. Its going to make for a fun D2 with everyone having to explain themselves as to why they voted for me

How much fun is it going to be for you to read the equivalent of 7 other players collectively shrugging their shoulders and pointing to how abrasive and useless you've been all day?

Nothing I do is ever rational.

Vote: freeko

. L-1, etc.

DtF’s first point does nothing to clarify why he no longer thinks freeko is the scum’s dream townie. He doesn’t explain what he dislikes about the second, which I had read as a sarcastic “you never believe that anything I do is rational” from freeko.
My read on this period is a contrived change of position from DtF.

vote: DraketheFake

[Fishythefish]

By the way, a question to any experienced players: in a normal game, how common is it for a serial killer to be able to no kill? This is obviously relevant to testing L-k's claim.
Incidentally, on reflection I no longer support letting L-k choose his own kill. The benefits are marginal, and if L-k is the SK, his interests may not align with ours, particularly over the matter of whether or not he should be shooting at all.

[Fishythefish]

So... you're saying optimal play for scum is to do exactly as you did. You're vote clearly says you thought he was scummier, but you spend your post avoiding saying to that affect. Intentional or not, my conclusion is your trying to downplay or neglect the fact you thought Freeko was scummier (thus easier to lynch maybe?) because you do not want to appear scummy. This worry makes you look scummy.

Yes, I am saying that the optimal play for both scum and town was to vote for the scummier player, which is what I did.
I hardly thought it was neccessary to state that as town I voted for the scummier player- that is just what townies do. The whole point of my argument has been that all you can draw from the vote analysis is that I thought freeko was scummier than DDD- I am hardly trying to downplay this.

[Fishythefish]

You're going to have problems making the second half of that statement stick.

I'll have another look over that.

Um... yes it is? I bolded the section of the post that made me unvote DDD, and you quoted it: I agreed with your sentiment that he was harming his case against DDD, and then I wrote "this this this." I like how you try and allude to the fact that my 283 only sort of eplxains my position - which I think it does pretty well - and then only link to it.

You misunderstand. Your reason for unvoting DDD is explained; however at this point you think it just as likely freeko is tunnelled townie as scum. You don't explain properly how your position changes from this to freeko being scum.

[Fishythefish]

Hmm. I like how this applies to you but doesn't to me.

Vote: Fishythefish

Note that my reasoning does apply less to you than me; it is less clear that when you switched, the DDD wagon was still a real possibility. However, I'm not saying you are scummy simply because you switched, but because you made a vote without proper justification.
Why the vote? (I'm guessing you didn't think much of my case against you . Other factors?)

[Fishythefish]

Netlava; surely a SK would also kill a scummy player? The mafia are much more of a threat to him than the town.
I think that if L-k is SK, and will follow our suggestions of kills in the hope of winning, then it is definitely not beneficial to lynch him yet.

[Fishythefish]

I can't really be accused of getting the freeko bandwagon going. My vote was for different reasons to all the other votes on him, including my later vote, and is pretty much unrelated to the bandwagon on him. I think you are clouded by hindsight; at the time, freeko was under no kind of pressure, and this is no more an attempt to bandwagon than any other first vote on a player. As I've expressed above, can't see a reason to think that hops from DDD to freeko are particularly scummy votes. The part of my voting pattern most worthy of attention is definitely my vote on DDD. This is the most beneficial vote of the three for scum by far, and merits attention; I suggest you look at the post and other posts I had made on DDD, and decide whether or not you think I justified it sufficiently.

This is such a suspect sentiment. Refusing to admit that adding a fourth vote onto a player pushes the second wagon to the forefront is short-sighted at best, and then to say "I can't be suspicious for this vote, but you should check out my other suspicious vote" is both a decoy and just odd.

My entire voting pattern was being talked about when I made this post. That is why I gave my thoughts on the vote analysis of all of my votes.
Of course my vote pushed the second wagon to the forefront. But since the scum didn't care which wagon won, this is not that beneficial for them- unless you think DDD's wagon was already doomed when I switched.

Meh. My position here started as "I don't think that the voting analysis is very strong here, because the paired wagons were both townies and the mafia didn't care which lynch happened. I think without case analysis, conclusions on how likely those three players are to be scum are unconvincing". If you read the many posts I've made on this, that is all I've ever really said, and I don't think this position is absurd or scummy.

However, I take the point (made implicitly in various places) that DDD's wagon did become unviable at some point- arguably quite early on- and I didn't take this enough into account. This does invalidate my analysis to some extent, and my position that these votes were neutral is too extreme. Vote analysis does suggest that late voters on freeko are more likely to be scum, as are early voters on DDD (which I never denied). I still think this is lessened by the fact that both the wagons were on townies. I am amazed that Jere seems to think the vote analysis is strong enough that anyone would think it sensible to kill all three of us without further ado, and I think the main reason noone has suggested that is it's a horribly anti-town idea.

I find the case against Fishy more compelling than the case against Drake, although I get a scum-vibe from both of them.

I am currently pretty unclear about what the case against me actually is. Jazz, could you explain the points against me you find compelling please?

[Fishythefish]

Lol. Those don't say anything about me hating humungous posts. If you read the first one again, you'll see that I'm advocating fishy's huge posts, as to say "stick wit fishy, he knows what he's talking about". And the following posts are me trying to figure out if I'm ever going to have to do that because I suck at them.

I had read your stick wit fishy as "stick wit fishy for the lynch, his posts are too big", and presumed it was a joke.

Anyway, proper post coming later tonight.

[Fishythefish]

- Drake hasn't responded to my case since I clarified it- Drake, I think that between your unvote of DDD and your vote on freeko, it is completely unclear why you changed your mind. His withdrawal (to some extent) of suspicions on me could be genuine, or could be an attempt to make me less suspicious of him. I lean towards the latter because of his extremely easy switch to a lurker- it smells like he wants to change his vote, and has looked for the easiest way out. I'm still happy with my vote.

- Netlava thinks L-k is likely SK/scum now, whereas before likely SK. If you think there is more than a very outside chance of L-k being scum, you should say why, because that is a very different thing from him being SK, and it is scummy that you are happy with not lynching him. If I thought L-k was probable SK with a non-negligible chance of mafia, I'd be pressing hard for a lynch.
Netlava's case on Jere boils down to some pretty minor uses of emotional language. I'm not at all convinced by it.

-Nuwen, Howard, Jazzmyn and Looker need to post on recent developments, or just anything in some cases.

- JereIC brings up what I feel is an insane plan, and expresses surprise that it has not being suggested by anyone else. Well, the big question is why, even if he is surprised? He doesn't want the plan to happen. I doubt he is calling everyone in the town scummy for not suggesting it. I can see only one reason; he wants to say "Well, I don't want to be lynched. But if it's for the good of the town, fair enough", while not actually thinking the plan is likely to be carried out. Jere; what good did you think it would do to bring up this plan?

[Fishythefish]

with 9 alive, I see no mathematical reason not to shoot tonight.

If we mislynch today. 8 alive. You shoot tonight. 6 alive. 3 scum. We lose.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy - why is the kill-em-all plan insane? I'm still open to the possibility that there is a major flaw with it, obvious to everyone else, but I've yet to see anyone spell that out. And I don't remember you responding this way when Nuwen was talking about killing claimed townies a few pages ago.

There is not even close to enough evidence to conclude that at least two of we three are scum. The town cannot afford three deaths for one scum; if we are up against three scum this is a loss. I don't recall that post of Nuwen's?

Note that my questioning of your motives is independent of how good the plan is to a neutral townie. Since you are not advocating it, there was no good reason for you to bring it up.

[Fishythefish]

Of your posts which you quote:
276. Is the unvote post.
283. Of the points in it, the first is saying you don’t like playing with freeko. The second and third points point out the nonsense that is freeko’s argument. There is no explanation of why this nonsense is a scummy nonsense rather than a tunnelled nonsense. Your fourth point points out a minor and seemingly irrelevant mistake in freeko’s post. You again refer to the possibility of freeko being town, and don’t say what has made this seem less likely.
289. You attack freeko’s style, but say nothing to actually suggest he’s scummy.
303. Yes, here you mention you would be happy to kill him, but at the same time you undermine yourself- you wording is very ambiguous as to whether or not this is partly or completely a policy lynch.

I take your point that the “nothing I ever do is rational” can be taken seriously.

309. I have to say I don’t understand this post. You seem to be saying that as scum freeko wouldn’t act as he was in fact acting?

My point still stands; yes, you criticised freeko in this period. No, you did not explain why your position changed from “tunnelled or scum, indistinguishably” to “scum”.

Light-kun, you need to acknowledge that if the town wants to tell you what to do, you will follow.

Howard; do you think lurkers are more often scum than other players?

I'm going to be away over Easter weekend; little/no access until Tuesday.

[Fishythefish]

First, however, I would like LK to confirm that he is still in agreement with taking direction from the town as to his night action, including whether or not to take any such action.

"still"- was he ever in agreement?

If L-k will not confirm this, in my mind he is automatically today's lynch.

[Fishythefish]

Last post before I leave.

for being so quick to accept Light_Kun's Vig claim and for being so against the idea of having the town direct LK's night kill or no-kill, purporting to prefer to let him choose independently, despite the fact that we need to test Light-Kun's claim since he could just as easily be a SK as a Vig. (And then a couple of weeks later Fishy posted, apropos of nothing and only after the hot light of suspicion had been directed to himself, that 'incidentally', he is no longer in favour of letting LK choose his own kill. That looks to me like Fishy realizing that he needed to backtrack in order to attempt to look more like a townie.)

1. Do you really believe a SK would go against the town's orders? The main reason I changed my mind was because I think there's a fair chance that, if L-k is SK, he won't be able to follow our orders to no kill.
2. OK, you may think my position was totally wrong, I'm not too bothered about that. But how could a loose cannon of a vig/SK benefit the scum? If I was scum, I'd sure as hell want to know whether he was a vig or a SK. Also, I'd just love him to get lynched. Knowing his target couldn't hurt either.
3. Related to 2, there had been no suggestion that I was scum for my position, though many disagreed with it, apart from a very minor point from Howard. Why would I feel the need to backtrack?

Do you think my voting pattern is more scummy than the other two players?

[Fishythefish]

Do you really believe a SK would go against the town's orders?

Where do you get from my posts that I think that?

You say that directing L-k's kills tests his claim. This is only true if L-k the SK can be distinguished from L-k the vig by directing his kills. The relevance is that if directing L-k's kills is not helpful in this regard, it is less important.

The main reason I changed my mind was because I think there's a fair chance that, if L-k is SK, he won't be able to follow our orders to no kill.

Is there some reason why you didn't post your rationale at the time?

By the way, a question to any experienced players: in a normal game, how common is it for a serial killer to be able to no kill? This is obviously relevant to testing L-k's claim.
Incidentally, on reflection I no longer support letting L-k choose his own kill. The benefits are marginal, and if L-k is the SK, his interests may not align with ours, particularly over the matter of whether or not he should be shooting at all.

My rationale is all but explicitly stated by the post in question. I wonder whether L-k would be able to no kill as the SK, and then say that I have changed my mind because L-k's motives might differ from ours over whether to shoot.

OK, you may think my position was totally wrong, I'm not too bothered about that. But how could a loose cannon of a vig/SK benefit the scum?

I don’t imagine it would, any more than a loose cannon LK here will benefit the town. I’m afraid I don’t understand your point or why you’re asking me the question.

My point is that if there is no reason for scum to take the position I took, it is not a scummy position. Weird =\= scummy.

I think it’s more accurate to say that

everyone

who was active in the game at the time disagreed with your position, and I seem to recall that there was also some suggestion that your position was scummy. In addition to Howard’s post to which you refer, Nuwen FoS’ed you for it in her post 392 and Drake’s 399 sounds pretty accusatory as well.

You are correct about the suggestions that my position was scummy, certainly in the case of Nuwen's post. However, the matter had not been mentioned in a few pages, and the pressure on me about this matter was minimal.

Do you think my voting pattern is more scummy than the other two players?

Yes.

Why?

---

LK - I think Fishy is becoming more scummy by default. He hasn't said anything to hang himself, but his defense hasn't been good, and he had done a poor job explaining why he changed his mind from being against ordering your kills to being for it. I want to see how he responds to Nuwen's post that I pointed out before deciding whether or not to vote for him. On a related note, I think DtF is acting oddly. Sometimes he's saying that the three of us are townies caught up in a flawed voting pattern analysis, other times he seems to be building cases against me and Fishy.

Re: the plan I talked about - the reason I brought it up is I anticipated somebody suggesting it, and was actually putting a bit of effort into coming up with counter arguments. When no one did, I really was surprised and confused.

This is a horrible post. I am “becoming more scummy by default”? What does this even mean? My defence of what hasn’t been good? It is very unclear why you find me scummy. I don’t think that the claim that I haven’t explained why I changed my mind is a reasonable one, as discussed above. All in all, it looks like you want to say that you are suspicious of me without providing any actual reasons.
Being surprised and confused about no-one bringing up this plan does not explain why you brought it up.

---

I think that L-k should not kill tonight, regardless of the alignment of the lynchee- firstly because another kill would not be very beneficial to the town (kills are not very helpful when there are an even number of people in the game), and secondly because this helps us find out whether he is a vig or a SK.

---

Given that many players in the game will be penguins, and there are only so many species of penguin, I think it would be (slightly) beneficial for the town if claims consisted of species as well as role. There would be a possibility of species counterclaim, since it seems fair to assume that each role has a unique species. The benefit is small, but I can see no disadvantage.

[Fishythefish]

Indeed. A good part of my reason for wanting species claim was to see whether or not L-k claimed human (or at least something which can hold a gun), which seems his likely species. I now believe L-k is a serial killer.
Whether this makes him the automatic lynch or not is different.

Some maths assuming 3 mafia, random lynches, random kills, no double kills, no prs:
Lynch L-k leaves us 4-3. Probability of winning 5.71% (=3/7*2/5*1/3 to kill scum each day).

If we don't lynch L-k:
35.7% chance of an instant loss with three townie kills by tomorrow.

53.6% chance of two townie and one scum kill by tomorrow. Here, the situation would be 3-1-2. Lynching L-k would be a loss. From here:
- 60% chance we lynch/shoot one scum and one townie. This leaves 1-1-1 or 2-0-1 depending on the scum's choice of kill. Presumably they go for the latter, giving us a 33% chance of a win. 1-1-1 is a 50% win for the scum, rather than a 67% win.
- 30% chance we lynch/shoot two townies, for a loss.
- 10% chance we kill two scum and win.

10.7% chance we kill two scum by tomorrow, leaving the situation at 4-1-1. Here, if we don't lynch L-k (which is much the better option):
- 60% chance we lynch/shoot two townies and end 2-0-1 with 33%.
- 40% chance we lynch/shoot the scum and win.

Therefore overall odds of winning are:
(0.536*0.6*0.33+0.536*0.1+0.107*0.6*0.33+0.107*0.4) = 22.5%, which is a huge improvement.

According to these calculations, lynching L-k will

never

be right until the scum are gone, which is rather surprising. Perhaps my maths is wrong?

It is possible we have some serious PRs who are going to start finding scum soon. This seriously improves our odds if we lynch L-k, and has less effect on the other scenario. However, if my maths is right I think that the improvement from not lynching L-k in the random scenario is sufficient to justify leaving him alive.

[Fishythefish]

Why do you think I am scum?

[Fishythefish]

Sure. I got a little carried away there, and the conclusion that we should definitely not lynch L-k is too strong. It does illustrate that killing a known SK is not automatically good, particularly if we have other strong suspects and/or we think he is going to shoot scum.

[Fishythefish]

I believe that lynching Light-kun is

not

the lynch option for today. That's why I advocate the no kill order to better determine his alignment.

L-k's species claim is very likely false. L-k is therefore very likely SK. This means that the argument that we should not lynch L-k in order to find out his alignment is no longer relevant.

[Fishythefish]

Jazz-

On the opposite side of the town was

Debonair Danny DiPietro

, laying on his back. There was a red circle on the white of his coat in the center of his chest; the snow surrounding it also full of blood.

DDD was shot. This is a pretty strong flavour argument- killer whales simply do not shoot people. I suppose it is possible that the mod decided the mafia kill method would be in keeping with the situation, but the vig's would not. However, it seems fairly unlikely.

Well, either way, I still support not lynching L-k today, as long as he agrees not to kill tonight (or whatever else we say- but to test his claim no kill looks much the most sensible).

Jere, I criticised a post of yours in 551. Comments?

[Fishythefish]

Open your eyes! You haven't made an argument against me for pages. The arguments you made previously I have responded to, with no comment from you. The only new thing is that I caught you in what looks like a lie- and your accusation that this is a scum tactic simply cannot stand up without evidence.
You want me lynched. Please state your reasons.

Once more: if you are not lynched today, do you agree to shoot as the town directs you?

[Fishythefish]

Blame LK. He asked my opinion of you, and I wanted to focus on other stuff, so I just gave him my quick thoughts without spending a lot of time on the analysis. “More scummy by default” is meant to say that other people have decent cases against you, and you haven’t defended yourself against them well. Your defense of yourself hasn’t been good. If I vote for you at a later date, I will make it clear why.

Fair enough.

It took 5 posts because your posts in that period had been small and relating to an unrelated and very topical matter. After your third post without response, I thought it might have slipped your mind.

Maybe it's written.

DraketheFake - 1 (FishytheFish)
JereIC - 1 (Netlava)
FishytheFish - 1 (Light-kun)
Light-kun - 1 (DraketheFake)

Not Voting - 5 (Jazzmyn, tubby216, JereIC, Looker, HowardRoark)

9 alive, 5 to lynch

-Mod

(Vote Count accurate as of Post 575)


tubby216 replaces Nuwen!

[Fishythefish]

So you're response is to once again provide as little defense as possible...

Can we lynch him now? Please?

It's time for you to start making sense.
"once again"... where else do I provide little defence?
Did you read the point against me? It was that I had taken 5 posts of mine (and about 24 hours) to demand a response to a question I posed. What do want, and essay? There's a simple reason for my actions, so I give it.
My questions about why you think I'm scum are not rhetorical.

[Fishythefish]

Two typos in a 5 words sentence....
EBWOP: "What do you want, an essay?"

[Fishythefish]

I have not much experience of flavour, but the inconsistency of a killer whale with a gun seems on an altogether different scale than the inconsistency of two species which don't make sense together. I also don't think L-k's recent conduct (ie. repeated refusal to acknowledge that he will obey the town) is that of a vig, but rather of a SK who is unable to no kill. The people who are urging leaving L-k alive based on being able to lynch him if he disobeys us haven't thought about the numbers. Unless we are exceptionally lucky (ie. lynch scum AND shoot scum), we won't be able to kill L-k tomorrow without handing the game to the scum.

Jazz, your other reasons for voting me I have responded to (551), and you have not commented. I currently am very unclear on why you are voting for me, other than a disagreement over the importance of the flavour argument which is shared by 3 other players (jere, drake, tubby). I think your vote looks bandwagonny, as it is not well backed up, and I am clearly a player whose lynch is a possibility relatively soon.

It should be noted that if L-k and I are both alive tonight, it seems certain that L-k will shoot me, unless something changes dramatically.

[Fishythefish]

Oh and, this should go without saying, but tubby, I'd like an explanation for your vote.

[Fishythefish]

I'm not ready to claim yet (while I have no intention of doing a freeko- if someone is actually ready to hammer me, I will claim).

Here's why:
- tubby's vote on me is totally unexplained.
- Looker's vote on me is totally unexplained.
- L-k's vote on me is old, and he refuses to respond to my comments.
- Jazz's vote similarly.
To the players on my wagon, and prospective hammerers; why? Also, are you happy with your fellow wagoners?

Until I have had a chance to defend myself against something, I'm not going to claim. Claims, unless totally necessary, harm the town, and I think this lynch should be avoidable without one.

I think my play does not deserve being at L-1. I think the scum are running with Drake's vote analysis, which is inconclusive at best, to unfairly narrow the pool down to 3 players. I further feel they are using this, along with a few other weak points against me, to get me lynched.

I no longer want L-k lynched, following his statement that he will not shoot. On the other hand, if it is him or me there are no prizes for guessing what I will choose.

unvote

- while I am still uncomfortable with Drake for the reasons I gave then, I find the wagon on me now much more suspect than yesterday's.
When I get time, I intend to decide who of my three attackers other than L-k I find most suspect, and build a case on them.

[Fishythefish]

515, Jazz's case

519, my response

530, Jazz's response to 519

551, my response to 530

Your attack on my 551 is simply absurd. Because I don’t quote everything in it, you claim I am responding selectively. Of your points in it:

The first is not relevant to the case on me.
The second I respond to.
The third I respond to.
The next 4 are all completely covered by my next point- viz that if there is no reason for scum to take my position, it’s not scummy. You were asking why I brought a few things up- this was the answer to all of them (and that was obvious).
The remaining two I respond to.

Jazz, your other reasons for voting me I have responded to (551), and you have not commented.

I have pointed out my reasons for voting for you previously. They have not changed. Your post 551 was inadequate, as it was a selective response to my prior post; it addressed only parts of my post and left out other parts; and much of it (just like your prior post to which I was replying in a prior post) was in the nature of strawman arguments, addressing things that I did not raise in the first place. Your 551 only further solidified my take on you as scum, and did nothing to alleviate it.

This part of 608 is, to put it simply, a lie. I don’t quote every word in your post. But I respond to every point in your post, and in your case. If you think there is a strawman argument in it, where is it? Everything I say is detracting from your reasons for finding me scummy, are there are no big reasons I have overlooked. That 519 brings up things you did not say is false. Everything in it is relevant to you finding me scummy.
I struggle to believe this paragraph of 608 was typed in good faith.

Since you don’t want to summarise, your case, as I see it:
1) Believing L-k too easily is scummy.
My reply in 551 definitely needs a response- why would scum do this?
2) Retracting suspicions on L-k is scummy- particularly since it was not justified at the time.
This is the one point I concede. I did withdraw my suspicions of L-k, which were at odds with the rest of the town. However, do you really not agree with my point in 551 (about my justification for it)? I think this is very clear.
3) My day one voting pattern is suspicious. Specifically, more suspicious than anyone else, including Jere and DtF.
I asked you if this was your position. You said “Yes”. I asked you why. Please respond.
4) My disbelief of L-k is scummy. Furthermore, I am trying to get him lynched.
I have

never

advocated L-k’s lynch if he agrees to no kill. Do you seriously imagine I am scum who thinks vigilante L-k won’t go along with the town, and so can get him lynched? Why have you not criticised any of the three players who take the same view as me, including those who want to lynch L-k regardless of his agreement, and voted him?
5) 551 is a selective response, involving strawman arguments.
This is a nonsense.

If I have missed anything, or misrepresented you, please clarify.

So yeah, I think your case on me needs some work. Before your last post, I thought it might just be poorly explained. Following this post, I think that you are scum. I find it incredible you find

nothing

in 551 worthy of a response. When I attacked your case, I don't believe you reviewed it. I don't believe you even considered the points in 551 again. You didn’t even bother to respond to the direct “Why?” in it. You are not interested in the truth, you are interested in my lynch.

Vote: Jazzmyn

----

I’m giving up on responding to L-k’s posts. I hope they speak for themselves. L-k’s attack on me has got beyond absurd. This is not he play of a pro-town player.

---

I would still like to hear from everyone on my wagon about how they feel about me being at L-1, given that (at least half of) the votes on me are so unexplained.

[Fishythefish]

So, here's why I find Fishy (and, to an extent, DoctheFake) scummy. Their rationale for pushing LK to claim is that they thought he'd screw up, and then they could push for his lynch. That's preposterous. LK's lie was clumsy, but no one could have reasonably anticipated a massive disconnect between the flavor and his actual claim. Therefore, their post hoc justification strikes me as opportunistic, especially since they've

both

backed down when other people started criticizing it. In particular, Fishy's claim that he unvoted LK because LK promised not to kill tonight doesn't make sense. You think the guy's lying about his species in a scummy way, but he's telling the truth about what he's going to do tonight?

I intend to hammer, and I'd like a claim from Fishy.

Firstly, a factual error. My unvote was from DtF, not L-k. I was, for a time (to be precise, one post), leaning towards L-k's lynch (not least because he was planning to blow my head off tonight), but I have also said that even a confirmed SK is not the obvious kill. I have never, ever pushed for L-k's lynch.

At the very least, the promise not to kill means it is likely the game won't be over by morning, and that if someone dies tonight we know L-k is the SK.

I have not backed down from my flavour opinion on L-k as far as I am aware. However, I won't deny that my conviction has been weakened by the fact that other players think flavour a generally unreliable thing. L-k's agreement to no kill has also made me more inclined to think that I may have been wrong (though I am still fairly sure he is the SK).

On asking for species claims: L-k shot someone. The obvious read on this is "man with a gun". The obvious read on "man with a gun" is serial killer. I certainly thought there was a possibility that L-k would not want to claim a species for which "serial killer" made the most sense. In this case, he was very likely to claim a false species. Where is the ridiculous leap of logic you suggest? Once you start thinking about species, and thinking about the only claimed person, this is not a big step.
Also, it's pretty hard to see how this boast of this being my plan all along would be a scum move; outing L-k does not gain me town points, as L-k's lynch would be at least as good for the scum as the town.

I am not ready to claim. There are 4 votes on me I consider bad, and at least two which are unarguably so. I think a hammer now would be a horrible move. As town, you should be questioning the motives of my other attackers, even if you think me scummy.

[Fishythefish]

With me at L-1, and the threat of a hammer, I strongly urge someone to unvote me. This bandwagon is terrible. Of the players on it, two have not explained their votes

at all

. One is a very likely serial killer, who at any rate has no case on me except very old points which I have responded to. Jazzmyn? Well, on any other bandwagon Jazzmyn would hang for his lack of response to me if (when) I flipped town. On this one, he'd sail through unnoticed. Notably,

no two of my attackers share

any

common ground on why I am scummy

.

Perhaps I am biased by being on the receiving end, but I don't see how anyone can fail to see this bandwagon as ridiculously scummy.

[Fishythefish]

Oh, and one of the two players who haven't explained their votes at all voted for me while drunk. Just to put the icing on the cake.

[Fishythefish]

Notably,

no two of my attackers share

any

common ground on why I am scummy

.

Actually.... got a little carried away here. Jazz has, just about, mentioned that he finds me scummy because of vote analysis, though with little justification. L-k finds me scummy largely because of my reaction to said vote analysis. Jere has also said this vote analysis made sense, although not specifically when making a case on me. So this is not, in fact, true. Still, there is remarkably little consensus on the good reasons for voting me.

Jere: a while back you said that you found me scummy because my defences were weak. When I asked about this, you said, quite reasonably, that this were your immediate thoughts after asked, and that you would expand if voting for me. Well, the time has come for you to explain, if this is part of your rationale for being close to hammering.

Sorry for the multi-posting

[Fishythefish]

On Jazz: his first post gives four suspicions. These players are hardly mentioned again, and his reasons for suspecting them never mentioned again; probably because I became a more convenient target.
When Jazz comments on L-k (saying we should direct the latter's kills) he does not yet find me suspicious for taking the opposite view. This waits until he is trying to justify a vote on me.
There's not much to analyse in Jazz, and nothing in pacman. But what there is is scummy.

L-k-

Dear DTF: If we lynch scum, and mafia miss by your all powerful Doctorness (Sarcasm), I will shoot you tomorrow night. And I repeat for Howard who is obviously hard of hearing: TOMORROW NIGHT.

Why post this? Your shots should most certainly depend on flips, deaths etc., no way is looking forward to tomorrow helpful.

You know, the only arguable idea I have about flavor is that, even though I targeted Debonair doesn't mean I killed him. It is entirely possible that a serial killer and I targeted him, and when I "found him dead," I did nothing. Therefore, maybe a serial killer and I both targeted him. However, your narrow minded concept that I am serial killer for, essentially, flavor and/or "fucking up my species claim" (paraphrased) is absurd because:

I wouldn't screw up a claim if it were easy to do. If I were a mafia member, for example, I claim vig, town doesn't want me to shoot, I skate bye by paying attention to stuff like that. This aside...

In a mini NORMAL, flavor isn't allowed to have any grand impact on the game. In fact, if this game did have that included, allowing me to clear myself with teeth marks in Debonair's corpse or something, this game would then techinically be a mini theme, and Orange was in Peguin.

Finally: Flavor arguments are bullshit anyway.

I suppose there could be a vig and a SK. Seems like an awful lot of death roles in a 12 player game. If so, we are currently headed to bad places happens. The flavor, if it is as I think it is, couldn't be used to clear you. Only to catch you in an obvious lie.
Your last point, that flavor arguments are bullshit, may be a valid one.

Second Point: I find this to be deflection, which is scummy. I see no defense here nor do I see a requested claim.

There's no deflection, it is a direct response to Jere's post on me. I've said why I refuse to claim. The bandwagon on me is of a shockingly low quality, I think that I should be able to avoid the lynch without a claim (if this town is halfway reasonable), and unnecessary claims are bad for the town.

Another point against L-k shooting himself is that this gives any roleblocker the mafia have two free kills; L-k's and DtF's lynch when it is "proven" he is not a doctor. Altogether, an unworkable idea.

[Fishythefish]

*EBWOP: we are currently headed to bad places

whatever

happens.

[Fishythefish]

"Flavour is not allowed to have any grand impact on the game."
Well... we know that flavour is bound to have a slight impact on this one. For example, DtF claimed Emperor Penguin. Now, the scum

could

have that role- but I doubt it as they are predators. DtF

could

have fakeclaimed Emperor Penguin as scum, but that's a very famous species of penguin. The chances of a counterclaim would be unacceptably high. So in my opinion his claim is made more believable by the species claim. In a similar way, yours in made less by a species claim which doesn't fit your kill method.
I honestly don't know how much trust to put in flavour. I have no experience of it. Anyway, we will have much more information after tonight, so I see little point talking about your alignment today unless people want to lynch you.
Do you really think a genuine doctor would not counterclaim DtF? I think he almost certainly would.

[Fishythefish]

That's why I find this argument:

On asking for species claims: L-k shot someone. The obvious read on this is "man with a gun". The obvious read on "man with a gun" is serial killer. I certainly thought there was a possibility that L-k would not want to claim a species for which "serial killer" made the most sense. In this case, he was very likely to claim a false species. Where is the ridiculous leap of logic you suggest? Once you start thinking about species, and thinking about the only claimed person, this is not a big step.
Also, it's pretty hard to see how this boast of this being my plan all along would be a scum move; outing L-k does not gain me town points, as L-k's lynch would be at least as good for the scum as the town.

unconvincing. In general, you can pick any species, make up any role, and if anyone questions you about it, point to Krill-commuter as precedent that the roles and species don't make a whole lot of sense. So, when somebody is asked to claim their species, they have two options: claim truthfully, and cite to Krill-commuter if it doesn't make sense, or lie, and risk being counterclaimed and lynched. Because of that, I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to lie about their species when you're pushing for them to claim.

At that time, I was assuming that L-k was something that could shoot a gun (anything else was an inconsistency I felt was much worse than that of the krill). I had not thought that people would use the krill to justify

any

flavor oddness. On lieing; well, the risk of being counterclaimed is small unless you pick a penguin claim. It's not unreasonable to expect someone to lie about their species when their species is likely to be an intrinsically scummy one.

Here's what I saw, and my reaction to it:

• Your DDD to freeko vote switch wasn’t scummy, because both wagons were equally viable at the point you switched. As you later acknowledged, it was pretty obvious that the freeko bandwagon was gaining steam while the DDD one was losing steam.
  
• Having LK not kill tonight will test his claim. As I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s a good test of his claim because if he’s an SK, he might be one who doesn’t have to kill every night.
  
• The inconsistency of you first accepting LK’s claim, and later wanting to test it, is not scummy because… I’m actually not sure what defense you were trying to make. But the only good motive I can see for asking for LK to confirm his vig claim (with no kill tonight and the species claim) is that something happened that made you more suspicious of him. What was that? The obvious scummy motive was that you expected him to claim human with a gun, and were planning to get him lynched on flavor.

Also, never saw you respond to my point about Nuwen’s 243

First point is fair. I was wrong about that, to a certain extent (while I still think DDD's wagon wasn't dead at this point).
I was (and am) under the impression that SK's always or nearly always have to kill. Is this wrong?
Things that happened to make me more suspicious of L-k: predominantly his suspicions of me, which were a parody of tunnelled. His play was hopelessly anti-town. He would not say he would no kill. Even otherwise, there is no inconsistency between being inclined to believe a claim and wanting to test it. Also, I made it clear where and why my stance on directing L-k changed. It was because I realised that directing him to no kill would actually be an effective test.
I was never against testing L-k's claim. Once I realised that there was an effective test, I was in favour.
If L-k was a vig, he would have a credible vig claim. If not, he wouldn't (at least, that was my assumption). Mafia and town alike could only get a lynch of L-k the serial killer out of flavour. I think that my reaction to L-k's probable false claim shows that this was not my intention.
Your point on 243 consisted of mentioning it. I'm afraid I didn't and don't understand the reference.

Leaving the hammer in the hands of known drunk-voter who is suspicious of me looks unwise.

[Fishythefish]

- An interesting point on the killer whale. I had merely been thinking of it as something that couldn't hold a gun. But I don't quite understand- you thought L-k was lying when he claimed his species, as did I. This discussion is about whether it's plausible I predicted this. His actual claim isn't all that relevant.

- Thanks.

- On 243: well, mostly that's because it's completely different. Nuwen's discussion was on killing claimed vanilla townies, not three players who (in my opinion) have been picked pretty much at random.

- You are responsible for your vote. You are also responsible for the forseeable consequences of your vote. At different times in the game, votes on people need different levels of certainty. Right now, with the bandwagon on me being how it is (ie. very weak and susceptible to hammered hammering), you should be extremely certain about me being scum to put me at L-1. I don't believe your case justifies that certainty.

- L-k has nowhere suggested that he lied, to expose scum or otherwise. I think this position is completely unjustified.

[Fishythefish]

Some questions for Jere:

- What are the motives of the 4 players voting for me?
- All 4 of the other players attacking me are either unable to participate fully at the moment or consistently refuse to explain their reasons for voting me. Are you ready for my lynch under these conditions?
- Who are my likely scumpartners? Bear in mind that if even one of the players attacking me was not, my lynch would be pretty unlikely, instead of extremely likely (as the other three players have all said they think me town). Netlava sits back and pushes a case which is getting no support. DtF and Howard are vocal in their support for a likely lynchee, having been suspicious of me earlier in the day- a huge risk if we were scumpartners.
- What do you think of my point that it seems unlikely that I was trying to get L-k lynched based on flavour grounds, given that I didn’t try to get L-k lynched based on flavour grounds?
- Where is the inconsistency in my treatment of L-k’s claim?

[Fishythefish]

/confirm

~

this is where it all started to go downhill for you,,, lol j/k

Here is JereIC, completely changing his reason for voting for me! At first, he says I am a bit fishy, but when other players bring up another line of argument, he jumps on it, even after I have clearly demonstrated that it is nonsense! What is this, if not trying to force through a townie lynch, with no thought for logic, reason or debate?
At this point I think JereIC is obvscum. There is no need for a claim- I cannot think of a claim which could make me think about lynching anyone else. The only question that remains, before we lynch this vile scum, is who his partner(s) are. One, I think, is obvious- ZEEnon. It has struck me throughout that these two players are very carefully and deliberately completely avoiding ANY contact with one another. Add this to the excellent points Drake has recently made against ZEEnon, and I think we have tomorrow's lynch

4th post of the game and you already get into OMGUSand a lil WIFOM thrown in,,, booo bad fishy.

My problem with picking two lynch targets is it is very good for the mafia if they have a roleblocker- they roleblock if and only if LK is hitting one of them. If LK is a SK, he will surely be shooting for scum at this stage (even if we lynch scum that looks like the right move for him)? For this reason, I'd be tempted to let him choose his target. Note that if LK is really a SK, he'll still probably be nightkilled in the upcoming day or two, as the scum can't tell between the two, and don't like SK's anyway.
Overall, I think if we ask any doctors out there not to protect LK, the risk he poses to the town is minimal, and we should let him act alone for now.

Ok fist off the info gain from two very real wagons with the possible death of both players is a very useful tool if wielded correctly by the town. Plus there are only so many scum in this game it would be very difficultr for them to influence correctly both selections to their advantage, and to do all of that without making a mistake or giving away a tell.

See and as I am reading you in isolation here, I really do not like your posts they are very DDD like where you say a whole lot but you are not telling me anything, To me with every post its more and more info to try to confuse and cover yourself in.

At one point you even come out to support LK and his claim then spend 8 posts denouncing it on the grounds of flavour,,

Did you ever claim??

"Flavour is not allowed to have any grand impact on the game."
Well... we know that flavour is bound to have a slight impact on this one. For example, DtF claimed Emperor Penguin. Now, the scum could have that role- but I doubt it as they are predators. DtF could have fakeclaimed Emperor Penguin as scum, but that's a very famous species of penguin. The chances of a counterclaim would be unacceptably high. So in my opinion his claim is made more believable by the species claim. In a similar way, yours in made less by a species claim which doesn't fit your kill method.
I honestly don't know how much trust to put in flavour. I have no experience of it. Anyway, we will have much more information after tonight, so I see little point talking about your alignment today unless people want to lynch you.
Do you really think a genuine doctor would not counterclaim DtF? I think he almost certainly would.

No the doc would never counter claim if he is smart because once he is exposed he cannot protect himself and scum kills him then our faithful cop will have no protect for when he claim a guilty,,

You have played this game before right??

Now granted I know this is all over the place and prolly hard to follow but its how I think and why I never make these kinds of posts, so I hope you are happy,,

Now I have the beer batter all ready can we go ahead and fry this fish now the fat guy in hungry.


..... in a side note nothing i said was meant in a mean or heartless way i was attempting to be funny by poking a little fun at you ......

Tags fixed (If you type a post in Word, quotation marks are different)

[Fishythefish]

No, I never claimed. I don't intend to I feel that at least the majority of my attackers are making a decent pretence at being susceptible to reason.

Yes I have played this game before.

The first post you attack is entirely a joke post.

Your point on not wanting to direct L-k makes sense, I suppose. It is a somewhat obscure argument in favour of directing the kill (no one mentioned it at the time). You disagree with my ponit of view; but what you feel I have overlooked is hardly so glaringly obvious that I am scummy for it. Also, there is no motive for scum to support L-k.

You condemn me for making posts like DDD's- he was town. I am under attack, and I think most of the reasons are flawed. Of course I want to explain myself fully. If you feel I am trying to obscure the facts with sheer volume, then that is a different matter- and perhaps the only thing in you post which really expains why you think I'm scum.

I believed L-k's claim at the time, although there seems to be a serious misconception as to how sure I was. Then he made a species I regarded as very likely untrue. So I changed my mind. How is this scummy?

I would think that a doctor swapping his life for a scum's would be good for the town. In any case, it is an enormous stretch to call this opinion scummy.

Your post gives some things about my playstyle you don't like, and some opinions of mine you disagree with. Fair enough, I've made a lot of posts in this game, you are almost bound to disagree with some of them. You have every right to think I'm long winded and post too much. But most of your post doesn't say why you think I am scum. It feels like you have skimmed over my posts, looking for anything you can disagree with. I really think you need to reconsider your vote.

[Fishythefish]

Why doesn't emperor penguin = doctor make any sense?

[Fishythefish]

To clarify; if you asked me "what is an emperor penguin's role?", I'm not claiming I'd say "doctor! Duh!". But there's no actual inconsistency here, unlike a killer whale who can shoot people.
Since the odds look excellent that I'm going to die before DtF, and I think he's probably a townie anyway (mostly due to his reaction to my bandwagon today), for now at least I'm supremely unconcerned that you think we are linked. However, if you are using this as an argument that I am scum, it makes no sense. DtF's species claim has no inconsistency with any known facts.
My position on flavour started as "the flavour is unlikely to have any glaring internal inconsistencies"- in particular, clearly kill method has been thought about to some extent (a single red dot in the middle of his chest... doesn't feel like the idly chosen wording of a mod who has forgotten the killer is a whale), and I would expect it to correlate with role flavour. My position is currently this, tinted with a bit of "maybe it is all BS". There is simply no logical reason this should make me find DtF scummy.

[Fishythefish]

What I was thinking was that L-k was very likely a human hunter. When he didn't claim this, I didn't really think about the actual animal he claimed, beyond being unlikely- my thought process went "This claim is false. It is likely to come from a SK".

In the real world, you said we should lynch him (although maybe not immediately).

No. No I didn't.

You're not behaving like the pro-town player in my hypothetical situation, which means you either have different motives (such as neutralizing an anti-mafia player with killing ability) or extra information (like you're a cop/sk-hunter and investigated LK last night). You haven't dropped any hints about being a cop, so it's more likely you have motives that aren't those of a pro-town player.

You are right that I have no extra information about L-k's alignment.

We're never going to have perfect lynch conditions, but with the expection of Looker, everyone has presented a case against you and none of them seem particularly scummy, so it's good enough. That said, I wouldn't be ready to lynch if we were in a LyLo situation.

Here's why I think you shouldn't be ready for my lynch. There is one none-case on me, one terrible case (tubby), and one case which I have asked serious questions about (Jazz). IF I am town (which is at least possible) you should want to know which of those to pressure tomorrow. Even if you are certain that mine is the lynch you want, a lynch now isn't right.

I'm pretty sure DtF is scum. His doc claim doesn't make a lot sense if he's scum, but it makes way less sense if he's actually the doc or a townie. I can't help but notice that you support his doc claim, and seem to be encouraging the real doc to expose himself when you say "I would think that a doctor swapping his life for a scum's would be good for the town." HR is my third guess, mostly because he seems to support your arguments a lot, and how quickly he backed down from his abortive case against me earlier. Net strikes me as pro-town: his case against me and for you may be weak, but I think he honestly believes it.

Yeah. The point I was making is that my pool of potential scumpartners is pretty narrow. My wagon stinks of scum interference, and I think makes me look much more townie.

- What do you think of my point that it seems unlikely that I was trying to get L-k lynched based on flavour grounds, given that I didn’t try to get L-k lynched based on flavour grounds?
- Where is the inconsistency in my treatment of L-k’s claim?

Your argument was basically LK is obvSK because his flavor didn't make sense, but we shouldn't lynch him yet because letting him kill for another night or two would increase town's chance of success. Then you said maybe we should lynch him tonight, but he shouldn't be the automatic lynch. Then that you weren't sure whether flavor was such a great way of finding scum. Then you said we shouldn't lynch him because he promised to not shoot tonight. I chalk it up to a mixture of distancing (don't want to jump on the same bandwagon as DtF, at least not at first), backtracking from the case when you saw it wasn't succeeding, and trying to still make him less effective by having him promise not to shoot tonight.

This paragraph sounds good, but you really aren't saying much. The only change in my stance documented here is becoming less certain about the flavour argument, due to other players expressing serious doubt about how valid it is. Believing that telling L-k to no kill would be helpful goes hand in hand with that. You can't say I'm backtracking from a stance I never took- I'll say it again.

I never wanted to lynch L-k

My theory is he guessed that mafia would be killer whales, so when he was pressed for a species claim, he said killer whale, expecting the mafia (killer whales) to realize he was lying and jump all over him, while townies would be baffled.

This theory is crap. If this was the case, after the initial reactions to L-k's claim (or a bit later, but at any rate by now) L-k would have claimed his real species. The motives you ascribe to L-k here are completely unbelievable. This is a terrible attempt to justify your case on me by implying that my reactions were due to knowing L-k was lying. There is also a side issue- you want to be seen to think L-k is vig so you can better justify being on a wagon that has no merit and has a likely SK on it.

[Fishythefish]

We're never going to have perfect lynch conditions

I think calling the current lynch conditions "not perfect" is the understatement of the century.

[Fishythefish]

Which doesn't address the vig-neuter argument, the distancing argument, or...

The vig-neuter argument is a bizarre one- you are attacking a position that almost the entire town holds, which is no different in my case, and that I am the only player ever to have put up serious opposition to (when L-k first claimed). The distancing argument is still worse- your argument goes precisely like this:
"Fishythefish is scum, because of this scummy position he holds. Oh wait, he doesn't actually hold that position? Well, that's to distance himself from whoever does hold it."
In a similar vein, I am convinced Howard is scum. He clearly wants to attack me over the lengths of my posts, which is a horrible and scummy position. The only reason he is holding back is to distance himself from scumpartner tubby.
These attacks are taking my pro-town position, and a position I do not hold, and turning them against me by coming up with scummy motives. They are entirely without merit.

I now believe L-k is a serial killer.

Whether this makes him the automatic lynch or not is different.

…

According to these calculations, lynching L-k will never be right until the scum are gone, which is rather surprising. Perhaps my maths is wrong?

It is possible we have some serious PRs who are going to start finding scum soon. This seriously improves our odds if we lynch L-k, and has less effect on the other scenario. However, if my maths is right I think that the improvement from not lynching L-k in the random scenario is sufficient to justify leaving him alive.

Here, I don't support L-k's lynch. Clearly.

I got a little carried away there, and

the conclusion that we should definitely not lynch L-k is too strong.

It does illustrate that killing a known SK is not automatically good, particularly if we have other strong suspects and/or we think he is going to shoot scum.

Here, immediately afterwards, I decide the conclusion was too strong.

L-k's species claim is very likely false. L-k is therefore very likely SK.

This means that the argument that we should not lynch L-k in order to find out his alignment is no longer relevant

.

This is about a different argument from mine. I am saying that L-k the very likely SK is probably worth keeping alive. Whoever I was refuting was saying that L-k the possible vig was worth keeping alive.

Well, either way, I still support not lynching L-k today,

as long as he agrees not to kill tonight

(or whatever else we say- but to test his claim no kill looks much the most sensible).

Logic here is clear. L-k is a SK, but worth leaving alive. He should agree to follow the town's orders- and the threat of a lynch will make him.

The people who are urging leaving L-k alive based on being able to lynch him if he disobeys us haven't thought about the numbers.

Unless we are exceptionally lucky (ie. lynch scum AND shoot scum),

we won't be able to kill L-k tomorrow without handing the game to the scum

.

This post shoots down some arguments for not lynching L-k. It doesn't say I want to lynch him, and certainly doesn't say I want to lynch him even if he agrees not to shoot. On the other hand, at around this point it was clear that L-k was not susceptible to reason (this may no longer be true, his posts have got more reasonable of late), and that come what may he was going to kill me in the night. So if he wouldn't agree not to shoot, I was leaning towards lynching him.

It's true that my position did change, slightly, out of the selfish reason that I was going to be the shooting target, and because I started to doubt my conviction in flavour. The fundamentals never changed- and I certainly never advocated L-k's lynch if he agreed to follow our orders. I never even advocated L-k's lynch in the other case- although I admit I was leaning that way to save my own skin.
Mine was never a position that could possibly get L-k lynched- all he had to do was say "I'm going to follow orders", and who wouldn't say that when their lynch was a danger? You are yet to come up with a plausible scummy motive for what I did.

Please address the fact that your read on L-k is completely nonsensical.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy: I think JereIC's argument filled in the gaps. I really see no defense on your part sense your play has been so all over the place and you statements were often barely in alignment.

I don't think this is true, and I don't think there has been a single attack on me which has given a inconsistency in my play with a plausible motive for me as scum. Some of my opinions have changed over time, and that is what is at the heart of jere's case.

Fishy: Emperor Penguin sounds a tad forced since I know "krill" and "Killer Whale." One of my earliest hypothesis is that scum would probably go for a safe, penguin-related claim. Thus, the sudden, unnecessary claim is highly suspicious. If he is, in fact, town, I would like to kick him in the balls.

Well. Based on flavour, the town probably consists largely of penguins (despite evidence so far). I'd say emperor penguin would be pretty much at the top of the list of likely species in the game- making it a very dodgy claim as scum. I agree that if he is town, his claim hurts the town a lot.

[Fishythefish]

I am convinced Howard is scum. He clearly wants to attack me over the lengths of my posts, which is a horrible and scummy position. The only reason he is holding back is to distance himself from scumpartner tubby.

WTF? Where am I attacking you? Especially for the length of your posts?

This was an example to illustrate the logical structure of jere's argument.

[Fishythefish]

(and as such was in no way intended to reflect reality)

[Fishythefish]

In the real world, you said {...}

Was there an out of thread discussion?

No. This is a paraphrasing "But actually you said {...}"

[Fishythefish]

So... in other words a vote for me now is tantamount to a hammer.

[Fishythefish]

Fish, you didn't acknowledge the post where you said you "no longer want L-k lynched." If you no longer want something, it implies that at some point you did want it.

Since I acknowledged in my post that I did indeed want L-k lynched if he didn't agree to follow orders, I thought this unnecessary.

But that's all semantics. It's just not credible that you moved from thinking LK was the SK and wanting to keep him alive so that he could keep killing, to that he might not be the SK and shouldn't kill tonight as a test (a lame test, as I've pointed out).

More accurate would be to say I wanted to keep him alive so as not to waste lynches. My analysis assumed he would kill no matter what we said (indeed I assumed he was compulsive- to a significant extent because he wouldn't agree to no kill). Whether we should keep L-k alive if we

can't

direct him and what we should do if we

can

direct him are very different matters.

It feels a lot more like you, DtF, and HR pushed LK to claim species (expecting to be able to follow up with your "man with a gun = SK" argument), then when LK lied wanted to promote the LK lynch without having your vote on the same guy as DtF, then realized the LK lynch was a mistake and trying to cover your tail.

I never held a position that would have lead to the lynch of L-k, unless he is mad enough not to agree to follow our orders when about to be lynched.

As for my explanation of LK, I think it's the only sensible explanation. The other two options are
- He's anti-town, and decided instead of claiming the obvious choice of human, going for the even more anti-penguin animal.
- He's really a killer whale, but didn't notice the weirdness when DDD's death scene was posted and joked about being the guy with a nice shiny gun in post 484.

As for why he's not confirming my theory, probably because he's still pretty suspicious of me - you should have noticed that he's already trying to figure out whether the alignment of one of us is indicative of the alignment of the other.

I think both the options you present are much more likely (and I don't think killer whale, in this context, is more anti-penguin than man- penguins eat krill, whales eat penguins. It's all good.). If this was a falseclaim, he would have said so earlier than this- indeed before you made this hypothesis. Overthinking this seems silly- the obvious explanation is that his claim is real and he's either vig or SK, or more likely that it's fake, and he decided to choose something that can kill.

I'll respond to Jazz later.

Stop trying to make fetch happen! It's not going to happen!

JereIC - 1 (Netlava)
FishytheFish - 3 (Light-kun, Jazzmyn, JereIC)
Looker - 2 (HowardRoark, FishytheFish)
Jazzmyn - 1 (Looker)

Not Voting - 1 (DraketheFake, tubby216)

9 alive, 5 to lynch

-Mod

(Vote Count accurate as of Post 694)

[Fishythefish]

Fishy also said (on Day 2 long after the fact) that “by maybe post 230, it was clear that DDD or freeko was likely to be lynched.” This looks to me like Fishy trying to give himself an out after the vote analysis led to him as a suspect. Back when post 230 was written, there was no looming deadline, there was no reason that other players could not be discussed, there was no reason to drop discussion on other suspicious play by others or to stop scumhunting by post 230. It is also suspicious to me that Fishy chose to cite post 230 as the delineating mark of Day 1, as that post was not one of his own posts, but rather a post by LightKun which only put freeko at 3 votes. Looks like Fishy was trying to ‘blame’ someone else by choosing that post by LightKun as the do-or-die mark, rather than one of his own posts/votes, when it was actually Fishy who tipped the balance, not LightKun, and that wasn’t until Fishy’s post 271.

Firstly- you say that my quote was "long after the fact" as if that was a bad thing. I'm hardly going to say that on day 1- everyone should be keeping an open mind. Also, I never in any way tried to blame L-k. The balance I tipped in 271 was

between

DDD and freeko. I think that it was clear long before then that one of them was the likely lynch.

I also contend that Fishy's insistence that the flavour of the game somehow makes LightKun's claim "very likely false" is ridiculous. I note, as well, that Fishy continues to ignore the fact that the flavour of the game makes it 100% clear that those of us who are townie penguins are also cannibals (cannibals!) feeding on fellow townies who are krill. It is one thing to have an idea about how the flavour might play out and to suggest that Light's claim might be false as a result of what you thought, but once it has been established beyond doubt that the flavour is, in fact, somewhat odd and inconsistent (i.e. those of us who are townies are cannibals), it is quite another thing to cling to your idea and to ignore the proven reality that the flavour is unreliable as a means to support your belief.

I still believe that having conflicting species and a kill method which doesn't fit are on a different scale of unlikeliness. Regardless, there's no good scummy motive for my actions.

Do you really believe a SK would go against the town's orders?

Where do you get from my posts that I think that?

You say that directing L-k's kills tests his claim. This is only true if L-k the SK can be distinguished from L-k the vig by directing his kills. The relevance is that if directing L-k's kills is not helpful in this regard, it is less important.

As I said, Fishy’s response here was both strawmanning and unsatisfactory. The former because instead of addressing what I actually wrote, he asked “Do you really believe a SK would go against the town’s orders?” when that is not what I said at all. The latter, because when I asked Fishy where he got from my post that I thought that which he attributed to me, he completely misrepresented my post. He left out what I actually said in favour of what he wanted others to believe I said. What I actually said in the post to which he purported to reply was that I was also suspicious of him “for being so against the idea of having the town direct LK's night kill

or no-kill

, purporting to prefer to let him choose independently, despite the fact that we need to test Light-Kun's claim since he could just as easily be a SK as a Vig.” Fishy misrepresented my post by ignoring the fact that I specifically said that we needed to direct LK's kill

or no-kill

in order to test him since he could be a SK rather than a Vig. The duo-combo of strawman and misrepresentation only reinforces my suspicion of Fishy.

Your post implied that you believed a SK would go against the town's orders, because you thought that directing a SK/vig was a good way to test a claim.
I can see why you think I misrepresented your post. If you look at it in the context of the next sentence, the quotation is "Do you really believe a SK would go against the town's orders? The main reason I changed my mind was because I think there's a fair chance that, if L-k is SK, he won't be able to follow our orders to no kill." The intended meaning of this, in full, was:
"I thought letting L-k act independently was sensible because testing his claim is impossible. Do you really believe a SK would go against the town's orders? The main reason I changed my mind was because I think there's a fair chance that, if L-k is SK, he won't be able to follow our orders to no kill- so I now agree that testing his claim is not impossible."

But it wasn’t stated explicitly at all. Rather, in the "post in question", which I note that Fishy didn't cite, he asked a question “by the way”, and then said that “incidentally” he had come to the conclusion that most of us had come to a long time ago, and that he was against until then. The post was this:

By the way, a question to any experienced players: in a normal game, how common is it for a serial killer to be able to no kill? This is obviously relevant to testing L-k's claim.
Incidentally, on reflection I no longer support letting L-k choose his own kill. The benefits are marginal, and if L-k is the SK, his interests may not align with ours, particularly over the matter of whether or not he should be shooting at all.

That doesn't look or sound to me at all like someone who is 'explicitly stating' their rationale for an about-face. The first sentence is prefaced with "by the way" followed by a question to experienced players. The second sentence is prefaced with "Incidentally" Neither looks to me like explicit rationale for changing his mind all of a sudden and coming around to the view that many, if not most, of us had already expressed. The first is just asking a question of experienced players, which suggests that Fishy has not come to any conclusions at all. As for the second, when one prefaces a statement with “Incidentally,” that means to me (and to most people, I would think) that it is not specifically related to what you said just prior, but rather that it is something that you just want to add to something that had been discussed elsewhere, previously, or nowhere at all. Perhaps that was Fishy just misusing the term, but that’s how it read to me, so I do not know how anyone would be expected to take from that post of Fishy's that that was his rationale for changing his mind all of a sudden. Given the strawman and misrepresentation above, I am more inclined to think that Fishy's further misrepresentation is deliberate rather than accidental, though.

The "incidentally" and the "by the way" do of course both mean that they are not specifically related to the prior thing- in this case, the prior post, made by me on a very different topic. I think these statements are pretty obviously related- particularly by the words "particularly over whether or not to shoot at all".

If I was scum, I'd sure as hell want to know whether he was a vig or a SK.

Makes sense. Wouldn't you also want to know if you were town?

I'd just love him to get lynched.

And? Again, it isn’t clear to me what point you’re trying to make.

Knowing his target couldn't hurt either.

Makes sense, but the tradeoff is that as town, we need to be able to test his claim and control his kill or no-kill.

Why did you just ignore those? I didn’t ask the questions for no reason, you know, and I don’t post just to see myself post. It is not at all sufficient to say, after the fact, and after you’ve wholly ignored those portions of my post that “the next 4 are all completely covered by my next point- viz that if there is no reason for scum to take my position, it’s not scummy. You were asking why I brought a few things up- this was the answer to all of them (and that was obvious).” This answer is wholly insufficient. I was not, as you claim, simply asking ‘why you brought a few things up’. I was asking you specific questions and you ignored them. You also ignored (again) the fact that I referred to the necessity of controlling LK’s kill

or no kill

– which you later went on to pretend I hadn’t mentioned.

Your three points pretty well ask for explanations for the bits of my post you quote. All of them are covered by the fact that I was illustrating that there was no scummy motive for my actions. The answers to your specific question is clear, and I believe my post answered the spirit of your points completely.

You say that you had made your case fully before; this really isn't true. That wall of text clarifies your position for me, and makes me much happier about it. It was needed to make your vote on me reasonable.

unvote

Suicide time- I don't like looker's play. Fine, lurking and lack of explanation is a style, its even looker's style by my meta on him. However, his recent "fish or jazz" comment is even worse than usual. To me it stinks of scum egging on a town vs. town clash.

vote: Looker

[Fishythefish]

Due to recent developments, i.e., Jazz's vote, I now decree Fishy off the hook. The scum is either Jazz or me...

That's unexpected to say the least. I hate to be the one to say this, as it's kind of nice not having enough people wanting you dead for a lynch, but.... what vote?

[Fishythefish]

a) It's not a false dilemma. Fishy said he pushed for LK's species claim because he anticipated LK making a false claim (you did too, btw). There's no way he can argue that he anticipated LK would make a false claim that made LK look even scummier then he did from the flavor. Therefore, the fact that he immediately concluded that LK was anti-town looks opportunistic and scummy.

I haven't argued that I thought L-k would make a false claim

that made LK look even scummier than he did from the flavour

. (Also, it is absurd to think the Killer Whale looks worse, or as bad, as man with a gun). I did anticipate L-k would make a false claim- and the type of false claim L-k made has no bearing on this. You misrepresent me.

[Fishythefish]

I haven't argued that I thought L-k would make a false claim

that made LK look even scummier than he did from the flavour

.

And no one accused you of that. My case is based on the fact that your motive for pushing for his species claim, then concluding he was the SK (and softly pushing for his lynch) don't make sense if you're pro-town.

You said "there was no way I could argue <stuff>". I think that implies I was trying to argue <stuff>, when in fact I wasn't.

Ok, why did you anticipate him making a false species claim?

This was my thought process:
1. L-k shot someone last night.
2. Therefore, L-k is likely to be a man.
3. Man is an anti-town species.
4. It is therefore in L-k's interests to claim a different species, and so he may falseclaim.

This was quite a long shot, of course. I didn't "anticipate" L-k's false claim in the sense of being confident it was coming. I did think it was a possibility.

The thing about killer whale is that its inconsistency is precisely the inconsistency of krill. This is a point where the "krill means flavour is BS" argument does apply- we know that killer whales as pro-town is possible. Maybe I'm alone here, but if you asked me what the likely role of a man was, I'd think probably a SK (more generally, not town aligned, given that there

probably

isn't a man in a town of assorted antarctic creatures). Given the krill factor, I'd feel much more comfortable claiming killer whale.

[Fishythefish]

L-k; on "favoritism" for DtF's claim. I have given two valid reasons why I don't disbelieve DtF's species claim and I do disbelieve yours. To repeat:
1. The inconsistency in DtF's claim is only of a kind that we already know exists in the game (from the krill).
2. The species he claims is one that is pretty likely to be in the game; hence would be a dangerous falseclaim for scum.
There's absolutely no reason to think he's lying, and a slight reason to believe he's telling the truth.

Howard: Looker always plays like absolute crap. I'm not surprised and I don't support a policy lynch.

This is true. I support a lynch on the grounds of looker's suspect pattern.
1. He jumps on the most likely bandwagon
2. He goes for a Jazz/fishy false dilemma- this really looks like scum trying to escalate the situation between town-Jazz and I, and get one of us lynched with the other taking much of the blame.
3. The moment I vote for him, he withdraws his suspicions on me.
There's obviously not much to go on from looker, but what there is makes me think he's scum.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy, you say that krill=town is the same kind of flavor inconsistency that killer whale=town is. What kind of inconsistency is that, and how is it distinguishable from man=town?

That is the inconsistency of "townies who eat each other". Man in this setting is an inherently evil species which would very likely want to kill everyone.

[Fishythefish]

There's no way that more than one mafia is an emperor penguin- DtF would hardly claim that if it meant death as soon as a single scum was caught. I suppose there's no reason not to have a traitor penguin on the mafia's side.

[Fishythefish]

In a similar vein, I am convinced Howard is scum.

Your vote isn't on anyone in particular. IIRC, you said this about several other players too. Who are your suspects?

To be clear- this was meant entirely in jest, to illustrate the logical structure of Jere's argument, which attacked me for a position despite not holding it.

I think Looker's play is scummy (and my vote is on him), as well as obviously anti-town. My suspicions on Jazz have weakened following an explanation of his vote which both makes sense and is coherent with what he had said before I criticised his vote. In my responses to Jere, I've sometimes called his arguments scummy- these points mostly stand, and he is on the list. Actually, I think you may well be scum, based on the way you are letting my lynch go through without any real comment. tubby I have no read on.
So, I'd guess the scum lie among looker, jere, tubby and netlava.

[Fishythefish]

Looker, you are accusing me of buddying on the basis of a scumlist that does not include L-k. For a long time, I have thought that L-k is a probable SK (for a while, I was completely sure, and I'm still fairly confident). This has been a very well-aired, and indeed much discussed point of view. If I wanted L-k on my side at the expense of honesty, I might not have spent the last however many pages accusing him of being SK, but instead opted for the more subtle tactic of agreeing with him about things. Your accusation is bizarre beyond belief, and I think is clutching at non-existent straws to justify your vote on me.

You accuse me of not scumhunting. Your play so far:
- Posts 0-24: no relevant content
- Post 25, you vote me (drunk). Also contains blatant buddying with L-k, and asks him to shoot DtF.
- Post 26- you clarify that you are, in fact, drunk.
- Post 27- you unvote, and say that "your opinion stands until you work out why you did it"
- Post 28- blatant buddying with everyone
- Post 29- "It's either Jazz or Fishy." You vote Jazz "to be safe"
- Post 30- you note that Jazz has returned.
- Post 31- you reiterate that it's me or jazz.
- Post 32- mistakenly thinking Jazz has voted you, you are certain that she is scum (unless you are claiming scum)
- 33,34- nothing to speak of
- Post 35- since actually it was me who voted you, you now think I am scum and vote for me instead

So. You have provided exactly 0 reasons for your votes/suspicions (other than the recent posts accusing me of buddying with L-k). You have instantly gone for first Jazz and then I when you thought you were being voted for. As far as I can tell, your suspicions on me were formed when drunk and you never worked out why, and your suspicions on Jazz simply crystallised out of the ether.

Jazz, if you are doing a reread I'd encourage you to unvote (in fact, I'd encourage anyone voting me to unvote ). tubby has "reserved the right to hammer"- which presumably means he intends to do so soon. I'd also encourage everyone to read looker in isolation. It's most entertaining.

[Fishythefish]

Well yes of course I believe my play to be town. I defended your deeply flawed accusation, and then brought up your play. As for lack of scumhunting on my part, you might have a point of late- being at L-1 concentrates the mind on defense.

[Fishythefish]

Wait...
Your saying you defended a deeply flawed accusation...isn't that anti town?

I defended

against

a deeply flawed accusation.

[Fishythefish]

Define the accusation. (By whom/why flawed).

This is

completely

obvious. Looker attacked me for buddying with you. I have already explained why this is flawed, though it is rather self explanatory.

[Fishythefish]

What about the other cases? You did post something along these lines for other people too.

I don't quite know what you mean.

I think the strong suspicions I have voiced today were on Drake, Jazz and Looker. My concerns with Drake's day 1 play still stand, but other concerns now override these (the wagon on me is, from my pov, very likely to some extent scum-driven, and that's my primary focus), and I think he has played pretty pro-town today, particularly in dropping his suspicions on me at a time when I was a very good target (if Drake was still suspicious of me, I would be dead). My concerns with Jazz were largely to do with his case, which has since been clarified in a way I find genuine, and so I am much less suspicious of him than when I attacked him. My concerns with Looker are to do with absolutely no useful content, together with OMGUS votes, and that I suspect him of trying to escalate me vs. Jazz. Looker has an unexplained action meta, and I think he is using this to excuse pro-scum play. These concerns are entirely unanswered, and that's why my vote is on him.

Also, Fishy now thinks LK is pro-town?

I don't know where you got this from? I still think the odds of LK being the SK are very good. He's pro-town right now in the sense that he wants to lynch mafia, but I doubt he wins with the town.

Drake; particularly if L-k is going to no kill, a lynch on him at this stage isn't going to be good, unless there a serious chance he is scum. It is WIFOMy, but it's pretty unlikely scum shot DDD. The chances of LK being SK or vig are very high indeed. And either way, he's a pretty good kill for the mafia tonight, particularly if we mislynch, as then L-k will never get lynched. If we can lynch scum today, that is far better than lynching L-k, and even a mislynch isn't much worse.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy- you think the mafia are going to kill LK over the claimed doc?

I had forgotten the claimed doc. Assuming Drake is real:
Drake has a lot of suspicion on him, and L-k is extremely dangerous to the mafia. I think if we mislynched, they would have a very difficult decision on their hands. L-k would then be pretty well unlynchable, and has the potential to do a lot of damage. In effect, from the mafia's point of view, he becomes a confirmed vigilante (he'll always be shooting for scum, and he'll never get lynched)- so the question is fundamentally would mafia rather kill an unconfirmed doctor or a confirmed unprotectable vigilante? Not obvious. If we lynched scum, I imagine they would simply blow the doc's brains out and try to lynch L-k.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy:
Telling mafia that Drake won't protect me ensures my death. Keep it a mystery and let the Doctor, if he is in fact that, reason out what to do. If he is Doctor, he should make the best possible move.

The last thing I would ever presume to do is order the doctor around. I don't think my predicting what the mafia are likely to think/do tonight helps them in the slightest. Also, the mafia shooting you tonight is a result I'd be pretty happy with.

[Fishythefish]

This day is dragging on in a giant circle...
I vote fishy lynch.

I disagree.

The cases on me are largely due to my odd (but not pro-scum) positions on some issues today, and my changes of stance- some real, some imagined. I really do think I have explained my pro-town thought processes on all of these points, and I think it's fairly clear there are no outstandingly good points against me. If my play was the enormous mess of contradictions that the attacks on me imply, surely there would be one point on me that I hadn't got a reasonable explanation for. I am not being voted for being scummy, I'm being voted for a few differences of opinion, and for changing my mind.

Aside from my incorrect arguments about vote analysis early in the day, I do not think there is a single point against me where the scum explanation is more convincing than the (correct) townie explanation I have given.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy's position is that LK is the Serial Killer because flavor matters and a guy with a gun is obviously bad news.

False. That is why I believe he falseclaimed.

LK is obviously a guy with a gun, as seen in the death descriptions and in LK's earlier comment that he had a "nice shiny gun to shoot people with."

Well, he is obviously something with a gun (though I never mentioned that comment)

When LK was forced to claim species, LK thought that flavor mattered and a man with a gun would look anti-town, so he made a false species claim. For the fake species claim, he went with killer whale because the krill=commuter role showed that flavor is BS when species are in the same food chain as penguins. Apparently he thought that because penguins eat krill, it'd be ok for him to claim an animal that ate penguins.

You are putting words into my mouth. I have never said why L-k made the specific claim he did, only that he claimed falsely. I stated that I found the inconsistency of man=town different to that of killer whale=town. You asked why. I explained.

That is, he false-claimed because he thought flavor and appearances mattered, but when making the false-claim he wasn't as concerned about appearances and flavor.

This flatly contradicts what you said before. You don't rephrase your previous point, you change them

completely

. When making his falseclaim, he wanted to claim a species which was realistically a killing protown species, which other players in the game were unlikely to be. I think Killer Whale plausibly does this, he just forgot he'd shot someone. So, he was thinking about flavour and appearances. He just forgot one particular aspect of this.

And LK wasn't concerned about the appearance of a guy with a gun when he said he had a "nice shiny gun to shoot people with."

This detracts from my argument, as it shows awareness of kill method. You have never mentioned this point before, except in the context of your pathetic explanation of

why L-k falseclaimed

. Your points apply just as much to this argument- L-k's thought process is just as obscure if L-k falseclaimed as vig.

From this, Fishy concludes we should keep the serial killer alive. At first it's because if the SK keeps killing, town has a better chance of winning since the SK is likely to kill off a mafioso or two. But then he insists that LK not kill tonight, and threatens to vote for LK if he doesn't promise to no-kill tonight. Apparently that was an empty threat, because he later said he never wanted to lynch LK. Now he believes that LK is going to be the mafia's prime target tonight, over the claimed doc, and since LK has promised not to kill tonight, we shouldn't waste our lynch on him today.

No, no, no no and no.
- I wanted to keep the SK alive because a killing serial killer is better than a lynched one. At this time I was more certain than I am now about flavour being important. I was saying that

given

that L-k would not listen to us and would carry on killing, he's still not worth lynching. You also fail to note that I weakened my conclusion with one intervening post.
- Telling L-k to no kill tests his claim, because SK's are frequently compulsive. This is compounded by the fact that I became less certain of the importance of flavour.
- The threat to vote for LK is he doesn't promise to no-kill does not in any way mean I ever wanted to lynch him. I've said this before, and I can only imagine you aren't reading my responses. If put in a "promise to do this or die" position, any player of any alignment will promise to do this.
- The mafia is going to shoot him point is an extra point, and I've said that over the claimed doc it is going to be a tough decision (and with an innocent lynch, it really would be. Also, future killings on L-k are likely). Just because I have more than one reason not to lynch LK doesn't mean they contradict each other.

Why

would I have done any of the things you say I did as scum? You don't give a single pro-scum motivation for my play.

Instead, he believes Looker is scum, mostly because of the weak case Looker made against Fishy. For that, I think he has to explain who Looker's scumbuddies could be - Fishy was at L-1 for a looong time until Jazz unvoted, so why didn't a scumbuddy hammer him for the mislynch? If he's assuming all the scum are on his bandwagon already, does that imply he thinks Jazz and I are both scum too, since he thinks LK is the SK?

Not only because of the weak case. Because he hopped onto first Jazz and then me for no reason after we voted him, because he attempted to set up a conflict between me and Jazz, and yes, because of a ludicrous attempt to justify his vote.
Possible scumpartners for looker:
- You, obviously
- Jazz, obviously
- tubby, who is effectively voting me
- Netlava (who, having said I was probably innocent when I had 5 likely voters, has a bit of repositioning to do before being able to justify voting me- and seems to be doing this). He would be in no position to hammer.
- In fact, even DtF and, particularly, Howard, are possible. They both supported me when my lynch looked likely without their help, and couldn't hammer given their previous positions. DtF less so, since he jumped off my wagon at a key point.

You clearly haven't actually thought about looker's potential buddies, probably because you already know who they are. You say a scumbuddy would be hammering. From a "Fishy is probably innocent position", when my lynch looks likely anyway, and attracting huge suspicion tomorrow? I hope I'm never scum with you

[Fishythefish]

I think there is a significant amount to be got from the conclusions of Netlava's and Jazz's rereads. After these, I agree we may as well have a deadline.

Life's not fair, is it? You see, I... well, I shall never be king. And you... shall never see the light of another day. Adieu.

JereIC - 1 (Netlava)
FishytheFish - 4 (Light-kun, JereIC, Looker, tubby216)
Looker - 3 (HowardRoark, FishytheFish, DraketheFake)

Not Voting - 1 (Jazzmyn)

Fishy is L-1 and Looker is L-2

9 alive, 5 to lynch

-Mod

(Vote Count accurate as of Post 761)

[Fishythefish]

Some facts: DraketheFake was the first one to vote for you today (463) and dropped you back to zero votes (483) without anyone else voting you. I had an issue with your quick acceptance of the Light-kun Vig claim, but had no other issues with your play. If I felt that you were scummier than some of the votes on your wagon or than some of the other players (i.e. Looker), then I would have no problem hammering you.

Drake's unvote may have come when I was on no votes, but at that stage it was very likely my wagon was going to gain support, very likely from all of Jere, Jazz and L-k, and possibly from you. I have to admit my impression was that DtF was voting for me for rather longer than the 20 posts he was, but he jumped off my wagon at an extremely odd time for scum.
If you are scum, then you have defended me in the expectation I will be lynched anyway, and felt you were too committed to that position to drop the hammer and/or you still feel my lynch is happening without you. I'm not saying this is particularly likely, but nor would I totally rule you out as a scumbuddy for Looker, who Jere was suggesting had no or few credible buddies.

Looker's meta leads to very limited information about her being available. When this information is significantly scummy, a lynch on Looker has two advantages- it eliminates a player who contributes nothing to discussion, and is an easy late game lynch target, as well as being likely to find scum.